Qualifier Irregularities

At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis. Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments and qualifiers. #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However midway through the tournament the time limit was changed - the first two rounds had a time limit of 2.5 hours but the third round and the final had a time limit of 2 hours. After the first round, I had heard some talk about changing the time limits for the remaining rounds but since the second round still had a 2.5 time limit, I thought the notion had been dismissed. Prior to the third round I was not aware that the time limits had changed. Perhaps other individuals heard such an announcement or maybe I had stepped away during that moment, but I did not hear any such announcement. I only learned that the time limit had changed midway through the game when there was only one hour left. At that point I immediately began to take a more aggressive position in the game because I knew that time would be an issue. Although I tried to emphasize to the other players to play quickly, on at least one occasion I was rebuffed with the response that the player had the right to take his time with his turn. The frustrating thing is that if the second round had been shorter (2 hours instead of 2.5 hours) then that would have resulted in a game win for me. Alternatively, if the third round had been longer (2.5 hours instead of 2 hours) then I also would have had a game win for me. I think the change in time limits was highly irregular and can't help but feel that I was screwed by it. Now I am aware that the tournament started late and there was some concern about the weather. However, having flown into D.C. from Chicago and carpooled from D.C. to Northfield, I will say that the weather wasn't really that bad at all. In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification). Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey, then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston). Even if there is nothing in the tournament rules against changing time limits in the middle of a tournament, it does seem abnormal. In addition, this also opens the door to potential abuse. For example, one could advertise the event as having a 2 hour time limit but then in the middle of the tournament, change the time limit to 1000 hours. This would then in turn give the locals a major home advantage (they wouldn't have long drive times or have to worry about catching flights). Granted that's an extreme corner-case scenario but still. Also, changing time limits midway may improperly favor some deck archetypes over others. If I choose a slower-building wall deck on the knowledge that there's a sizable time limit, I'll definitely get screwed if the time limit is abruptly shortened. #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there was initially a problem because a handful of players had included reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it and we spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like what particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure the cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor, Mylan Horseed, etc. When it turned out to be mainly commons and uncommons, Scott and I suggested that to avoid any sense of impropriety, it might be easier to just find legal copies of those cards and sub them in. Fortunately Scott happened to have legal copies of most of those cards so the situation was quickly rectified. The lesson from this experience is to please please please understand what cards are tournament legal and which ones are not (especially in regards to new expansions and sets). This is something that both players and organizers should be well aware of prior to playing in a tournament. Another minor issue is that it is my understanding that there were actually a handful of other individuals who were uncomfortable about the situation. However the requirement to speak out if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel awkward. Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in private, if necessary. #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel free to provide elaboration and/or corrections: The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all his cards and pack up (putting his hand into his library, taking all of his vampires in torpor and from the ready region). The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning to play it when Player C was going to die. Since Player C had a lot of minions (some in torpor, some not), and was preemptively packing up, Player A felt that it would be impossible to reconstruct the game state if he did not stop Player C. Player A told Player C to not pack up and that he had a way to save him. In response, Player B used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon. Thus because Player C improperly packed up his cards before he was actually ousted, Player A was forced to reveal his hand and was unfairly penalized as a result. * Please also note that Player A was playing an Anson Anarch Revolt deck, so a Life Boon wasn't completely out of left field. Now I understand that this is a difficult situation. If it were to happen again, this is what I would suggest: Player A does not say anything about having a way to save Player C, and simply allows Player C to pack up. When Player B ends his turn, and the Anarch Revolts would oust Player C, Player A plays the Life Boon. Reconstruct the game state as best as possible but if the previous game state could not be fully established then just let Player C sit there as a pool buffer. Since Player C had already given up, treat him as if he were not going to bother taking any actions or blocking. This was significant because Player B was close to being ousted and if Player C had not prematurely packed up, then there is a good chance that Player A would have gotten a game win. This would have meant that Player A would have qualified and that he/she would have made the finals as well. The lesson from this experience is please please please don't completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during your turn if you miraculously do survive. #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3 or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled out. Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly familiar with most of the cards we were drafting. There were some individuals however who were taking a great deal of time reading every single new card. Now I certainly am not begrudging these individuals for taking the time to read the cards. But I don't think it's right that I got all the flak for taking too much time sleeving my cards when other individuals took just as much time, if not more, reading cards and drafting. Once again I want to emphasize that the purpose of this post was not to bitch and moan. I had a great time at both qualifier events and want to applaud all of the organizers for a job well done. There's always room for improvement however, so by bringing some of these issues to the forefront, I'm hoping we can all have a constructive conversation. With regards, - Eric Chiang

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: (snip #1) [...] I understand your feeling of being screwed for the time limit change. I think something should be done to maintain it uniform during the prelims. More time in the final is ok for me, but giving different T.L. for each round is something confusing. It should not be changed during the tournament, imo. The more information we players have,the better. > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). this kind of problem also frequently appears, and people show at a tourney with an illegal deck... Again, information is the key. > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No > one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it and we > spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like what > particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure the > cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor, > Mylan Horseed, etc. This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book ! Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and uncommons ? just curious. > #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not > witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of > what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel > free to provide elaboration and/or corrections: > > The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C > > It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts > in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the > Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and > some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything > else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all > his cards and pack up > > The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning > to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B > used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon. Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn". With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure. Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my turn. What should the judge do ? i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) (snip bitch and moan from #4 ) interesting, except the #4 ;) great comments otherwise. reyda

reyda wrote: > > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of > > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No > > one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it and we > > spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like what > > particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure the > > cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor, > > Mylan Horseed, etc. > > This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D > Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book ! > Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and uncommons > ? just curious. my guess is that, if everyone packed some hard-to-find rares, there´d be rouble finding legal copies of said cards, thus rending several people´s decks completely illegal and then disqualifying them for play, which would´ve been really counter-climatic and bogus. cheers Luciano "The Baital" de Sampaio VEKN Anarch Baron de Curitiba VEKN Official Baali Clan Newsletter Editor

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Instead I think the issues warrant some > discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments > and qualifiers. > #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the > event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However > midway through the tournament the time limit was changed [clip how the time limit personally affected you] > Even if there is nothing in the tournament rules against changing time > limits in the middle of a tournament, it does seem abnormal. "The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option." The tournament rules don't really specify whether the time limit for all rounds must be announced before the first round of play begins or whether it can be announced before each round (Or it does specify but it can be read in more than one way). I seem to remember a time when "time limit" was something that was one of the things that had to be advertised in advance of the event. I think I would prefer that time limits for all rounds were announced before the event begins. > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). Of course, the tournament rules already cover this. > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. This sounds like one of those nice things that we judges do to not come across as though we're on some kind of powertrip. However, it always seems to bite me in the arse when I do stuff like this. It's always better to just stick to the rules. Some might think you are overly strict but hopefully they'll grow to appreciate the integrity of your events. > However the requirement to speak out > if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel > awkward. [clip] > Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in > private, if necessary. I guess if you're going down the path of allowing something you shouldn't allow, private would be better than public. The issue is probably better avoided in the first place by not allowing the banned cards. > #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. [clip] > The lesson from this experience is please please please don't > completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do > want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during > your turn if you miraculously do survive. This is similar to playing out Withdraw Deals. If you don't play them out, it doesn't allow someone to break the deal...and then it looks funny when someone suggests that they play out a withdrawal deal after having never done so in the past. A good lesson for all of us judges. Don't allow people to pickup until they are ousted and no life boon is played. > #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I > am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. [clip] > Once again I want to emphasize that the purpose of this post was not to > bitch and moan. Item #4 sounds more like a "bitch and moan" to me. :-) No real issues to discuss on this one, IMO. Different people have different tolerances for how much time is enough time. -Robert

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109890661.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of > irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis. ... > #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the > event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However > midway through the tournament the time limit was changed - the first > two rounds had a time limit of 2.5 hours but the third round and the > final had a time limit of 2 hours. ... > Perhaps other individuals heard such an > announcement or maybe I had stepped away during that moment, but I did > not hear any such announcement. I only learned that the time limit had > changed midway through the game when there was only one hour left. ... > Even if there is nothing in the tournament rules against changing time > limits in the middle of a tournament, it does seem abnormal. There's two issues here. One is just the concept of changing the time limit at all. In this case, the change was modest but it still makes a difference. People could build decks that are even sensative to the difference between a two hour and a two-and-a-half hour time limit. I think there's a lot of tournament organizers out there who are annoyingly oblivious to what effects their "minor changes" have on players. I'd say such organizers should be slapped a couple of times to get their attention except they're usually volunteers donativing their time for the common good and who often have a lot of other shit to worry about. Changing the time limit of a round without making sure all the players are aware of it AT THE START OF THE GAME is really bad, though! That could cost someone big time - either a qualifying shot or a chance at the finals. Hopefully, this will get corrected somehow. (By "corrected", I mean the organizer being made aware that this happened and it isn't an acceptable way to run a sanctioned tournament, let alone a qualifier). > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of You're not clear about this. You mean, they indended to _allow_ this? The organizers have to know the rules about legal decks. I have no problem with taking a little extra time and allowing players to make their decks legal, however they need to do it (including finding legal copies of illegal cards). But they shouldn't be expecting other players to tolerate illegal decks, even if by virtue of reprinted not-yet-legal cards. (Yea, I know it's kind of a funky rule and I personally don't agree with it. But rules are rules and it does make a difference.) [ quoted text not captured ] ... > The lesson from this experience is please please please don't > completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do > want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during > your turn if you miraculously do survive. This one is a lot nittier. I have trouble blaming either player C or a judge (for not stopping player C). Yea, you're right, people should toe the line and not behave like they're ousted until they're physically ousted - but it's such a corner-case situation that (even with the Anarch Revolt deck - many AR decks don't bother with Life Boon) that I have to write this down to being kind of off-the-wall. Say, there's five Anarch Revolts out and player C has five pool - so he uses them to do thing that will hurt player B not being aware of plyaaer A's surprise Life Boon - sort of the same thing. Player A may not have five plus life boon to give player C, he was only going to help player C survive for one more turn. One thing player A could do is call a judge over and have him make player C cease what he's doing without explaining why. That, at least, may give him a chance of not getting a visit from Mr. Tho. > #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I > am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now > please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I > was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took > out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3 > or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually > constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most > of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my > fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the > time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled > out. Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other > hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having > previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly > familiar with most of the cards we were drafting. There were some > individuals however who were taking a great deal of time reading every > single new card. Now I certainly am not begrudging these individuals > for taking the time to read the cards. But I don't think it's right > that I got all the flak for taking too much time sleeving my cards when > other individuals took just as much time, if not more, reading cards > and drafting. Was there time set aside for constructing your deck? There should have been a specific time limiit. If you used _that_ time for sleeving your deck, there should be no problem. Otherwise, you may have to wait until another game. (There should certainly be enough time between games to sleeve a deck.) As for time spent reading the cards, if it's a problem, there should be a time limit. If there's no specific time limit, it seems like it's neither here nor there regardless of who did or didn't complain. Fred

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109890661.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > <snip discussion of NJ timing issues> > Now I am aware that the tournament started late and there was some > concern about the weather. However, having flown into D.C. from Chicago > and carpooled from D.C. to Northfield, I will say that the weather > wasn't really that bad at all. > I'm glad you guys didn't have any trouble from D.C., but it was plenty bad for lots of people to the north and/or west. The only reason I point this out is that it's worth considering holding the NJ qualifier a little later in the year in future. :) > In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had > been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a > significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in > the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four > players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification). > Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I > qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might > want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey, > then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston). > That 9th place person would be I, sadly. :) > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > <snip accurate discussion of banned cards issue> I actually had a problem with the initial proposal to "let it slide," but I didn't feel like standing up in a public forum and potentially starting an argument with 30 other players. The tournament organizer did state that the cards were "common" or "nothing special" or something like that, which I guess was code for "It's not a Call the Great Beast deck," but it really wasn't fair to the players who paid attention to the rules and made certain to bring only legal decks. I'm glad this decision was reversed, thanks to you & Scott for taking the initiative. > #3. <snippage> No comment except that I feel sorry for Player A. In retrospect, it's easy for us to say he should have waited for C to state that he was ousted, even after C packed up, but I can see how the pressure of the unusual situation made him give away his strategy. > #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I > am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now > please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I > was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took > out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3 > or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually > constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most > of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my > fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the > time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled > out. Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other I'll cop to being one of the players who objected... though I would characterize it as "loudly" rather than "*strongly*." :) But, Eric, dude, you singled yourself out when you were still sleeving while 16 other players were shuffled, cut, dealt, etc. I'm an obsessive sleever, too, but even I don't sleeve draft decks. :) Lesson learned for you: construct after the draft even quicker if you're going to sleeve before round one. Or sleeve your precon deck immediately so you just have to sleeve the new stuff. Or get sponsored so you can give the cards away and not have to worry about taking care of them. Lotsa options available to you. :) > single new card. Now I certainly am not begrudging these individuals > for taking the time to read the cards. But I don't think it's right > that I got all the flak for taking too much time sleeving my cards when > other individuals took just as much time, if not more, reading cards > and drafting. Have to disagree with you here. You have to read the cards to play, but the sleeving's not so much a requirement. > I had a great time at both qualifier events and want to > applaud all of the organizers for a job well done. Second that! Great job at the NERQ, Josh! Thanks again to you & Ben & the rest of the fantastic hosts in Boston! > With regards, > - Eric Chiang > - Pat

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Another minor issue is that it is my understanding that > there were actually a handful of other individuals who were > uncomfortable about the situation. However the requirement to speak out > if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel > awkward. Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in > private, if necessary. You always have an opprtunity to lodge a complaint in private--it seems highly likely that if anyone had lodged a complaint either publicly or privately, it would have been rectified. As it was. For my money, I understand why even reprinted new release cards are not allowed for 30 days, as they might have different text that would cause some confusion. This makes sense to me. This being said, I am completely unconcerned with whether or not my opponents have, like, extra hard to get rares or more Blood Dolls as the result of them being in not yet allowed starters, or whatever, and for my money, I'd be perfectly happy if you could use new reprints immediately. But understanding the problem that could be caused by new wording on cards, I accept the current plan (although, it isn't any more confusing to use non re-worded old cards, like Jyhad Wakes, or whatever). In the situation as it occured, I was perfectly happy to see people play with the cards they were using, even if they were from the new set, as it made everyone's life easier. I would have expected someone who had a problem with it, however, to make their concerns known. And someone did, and it was fixed. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1109893800....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > I think I would prefer that time limits for all rounds were announced > before the event begins. I think I would prefer if time limits were advertised with the sanctioning of the tournament and not normally changed on the spot. What deck people bring may take into account the time limit adveritised. Of course, I know stuff happens, weather, facility issues, etc. Sometimes it's just not reasonable to expect the time limit to be set in stone. But there should be a good reason, if so. It should never be changed capriciously. Fred

Pat wrote: > I actually had a problem with the initial proposal to "let it slide," but I > didn't feel like standing up in a public forum and potentially starting an > argument with 30 other players. The tournament organizer did state that the > cards were "common" or "nothing special" or something like that, which I > guess was code for "It's not a Call the Great Beast deck," but it really > wasn't fair to the players who paid attention to the rules and made certain > to bring only legal decks. I'm glad this decision was reversed, thanks to > you & Scott for taking the initiative. Yeah, see, I certainly wouldn't have argued with you in a public forum--if anyone had stood up and said "Hey. I don't like this." in regards to the suggestion, I would have been completely ok with that, and likely would have defended them saying that if anyone took issue with it, as it is the actual rules, as that is why the actual rules are there. This being said, in this forum, where it isn't actually an issue, why would you have a problem with letting it slide, given that it simply made the tournament work better? Heck, even if it *was* a deck using 6 KMW Call the Great Beasts? I suspect that most of the illegal cards were things like Blood Doll and whatever (my pal Steve needed some cards for his deck right before the tournament, picked up a KMW starter to get some, like, Swallowed by the Nights or whatever, realized right before the gig that they were illegal and swapped for non illegal copies, but I suspect that a bunch of people did the same thing except without the realization and trading), but even if they weren't, really, how is that a problem? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BE4D1C64.1DF2E%pd...@lightlink.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It's as simple as this: There are published rules. Regardless of the logic of the rules on this issue, the rules are clear. Ten minutes prior to the start of a tournament is not the time to debate or change these rules. A sanctioned tournament, particularly a continental qualifier, should follow the rules. As to why I didn't complain on the scene before Eric & Scott took action, think of the number of "name" players who were in attendance... I've been playing for roughly 5 years but am a relative noob on the tournament scene. I'm not going to stand up and make myself look like a jerk in front of that many people who are so much more experienced than I. Nor am I going to bother to protest in private to the organizer, who has better things to do than listen to me when he's trying to get the first round started. - Pat

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of > irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis. > Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of > whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some > discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments > and qualifiers. > > > #1. The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final may have a different time limit -- but that difference should still be set in advance of the tournament). [VEKN 3.1.1] > #2. Players are not permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. [VEKN 2.3] This would include prohibiting having all players waive the penalty en masse unless someone steps forward. > #3. Good lesson, and good suggestion. > #4. The time limit for deck construction is 30 minutes, not set by the players. [VEKN 7.5.3]. The time limit for drafting in table draft is set by the judge. [VEKN 7.7]. The time spent in booster draft is more in the players' hands [VEKN 7.6] -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Pat wrote: > It's as simple as this: There are published rules. Regardless of the logic > of the rules on this issue, the rules are clear. Ten minutes prior to the > start of a tournament is not the time to debate or change these rules. A > sanctioned tournament, particularly a continental qualifier, should follow > the rules. Once again, I'm totally with you. I don't think that wanting the rules to be consistient is unreasonable. And I would never have argued that they shouldn't in reality. But in an absolute sense, really, what difference does it make? > As to why I didn't complain on the scene before Eric & Scott took action, > think of the number of "name" players who were in attendance... I've been > playing for roughly 5 years but am a relative noob on the tournament scene. > I'm not going to stand up and make myself look like a jerk in front of that > many people who are so much more experienced than I. Nor am I going to > bother to protest in private to the organizer, who has better things to do > than listen to me when he's trying to get the first round started. I mean, yeah, I guess, but really, if a single person had a legitimate complaint, which the complaint in question was certainly legitimate, I couldn't for the life of me see anyone having a leg to stand on otherwise (i.e. if anyone had said "yeah, that isn't ok", no one was going to argue, and if they did, there are enough people who are sane to support the side that has the leg to stand on, i.e. the "that isn't ok" side). The situation that occurred was entierly a situation of "some guy has 3 or 4 Blood Dolls or something with the wrong set symbol on them", and the solution suggested was simply "lets just make the game work in the name of it being easy and it not really mattering", and again, if someone had an issue, it would make total sense to simply say "yeah, that's not how the rules work", and no one really could have argued. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > The situation that occurred was entierly a situation of "some > guy has 3 or 4 Blood Dolls or something with the wrong set symbol > on them", and the solution suggested was simply "lets just make > the game work in the name of it being easy and it not really > mattering", and again, if someone had an issue, it would make > total sense to simply say "yeah, that's not how the rules work", > and no one really could have argued. I agree with Peter. If I had been the judge I would have spanked the infringing player and ruled that the reprints were proxies for the cards that they reprinted - if replacements couldn't be found. Seems to resolve the situation with minimal fuss. Of course, it would be different if the infringing player was trying to gain some kind of advantage from a confusing reprint and/or did the same thing next tournament. I think it's one of those "moving a vampire to ready region before finishing influencing" type-of-errors : easily correctable by acting as if the rule had been obeyed. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). I waffled on this issue because I really felt bad having to tell players, "You have a Kindred Most Wanted version of Blur in your deck, therefore you are disqualified and can not play." Especially since one player stated to me that he specifically went out of his way to replace all of his older versions with the KMW versions where he could that morning, just so that his deck would "look more up to date". I understand the reasons for KMW-printing cards not being legal; but when I saw which cards they were in each of the "offending" decks, I chose to "let it slide but let everyone know" for time-saving reasons. However, when people *did* voice their concern and came to me, the situation was taken care of, and no KMW-printing cards were in players' decks when play began. Yes, people should absolutely know the vekn deck construction rules before arriving at a tournament, and yes I will be more strict about it the next time I'm running a Continental Qualifier the week after the release of a new set that includes reprints. > #3 [The Life Boon Situation] There was really nothing that could have been done differently, after the player began scooping up his belongings. He shouldn't have done so, but if table-talk reveals that there's a Life Boon in someone's hand, there's nothing illegal about other players taking advantage of that knowledge... And just because "Anson Anarch Revolt" screams out "There is probably a Life Boon in his hand" to many players, doesn't mean you can fault the scooping player for not drawing that conclusion; different players have different levels of experience and expertise with the game. > #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft] As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun and the acquisition of "free stuff". I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck. The other players were itching to begin, so I gave that player's table a few extra minutes to their 2 hour round, which they ended up not needing anyway. This was a learning experience for me, as my first large-scale event as Prince. I'm glad that things went as smoothly as they did but I know I can do certain things better next time. Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:BuCdnZmFcYi...@comcast.com... >> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft] > > As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any > V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun > and the acquisition of "free stuff". > I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before > beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck. Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely informally, couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck? Of course, one thing that seems strange: I don't think of deck sleeving as an activitity that takes more than a few minutes. So if Eric was done building his deck ahead of some of the other players, one would think it would hardly add any time at all if he started sleeving right away - no? Fred

You've never sat and watched Eric sleeve. I think he has to sterilize each sleeve before he lets them touch his cards. Oh, and it's very distracting to him if he plays a card on one of your vamps and you take it out of its sleeve and touch it while he's taking his turn. Not that I would ever do that. ;) Although it's odd, I haven't seen him play with Charnas the Imp lately...

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > news:BuCdnZmFcYi...@comcast.com... >>> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft] >> >> As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any >> V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun >> and the acquisition of "free stuff". >> I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before >> beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck. > Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely informally, > couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck? It was the last day of a 3 day convention. It was a "fun" event. Many of us were running on very little sleep (I personally did not go to bed until 4am both nights of the convention, and crashed on a pull-out couch instead of driving home). Some players wanted to be finished as soon as possible so they could take their long trips back home. All but one player were rearing to go. The sleeving player was not in any rush to finish sleeving his deck. So his table was given some extra time; and that round they didn't time out so it was not a big deal. In the long run, it didn't matter. I apologize if it made Eric feel uncomfortable, but I'm sure that the remarks about his sleeving speed were all in good fun and the spirit of the friendly community of VTES. No more harmful than the loud cries of "Jared Strait is a dirty dealbreaker!" Josh who can get overly defensive and then start babbling

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:BuCdnZmFcYi...@comcast.com... > Yes, people should absolutely know the vekn deck construction rules before > arriving at a tournament, and yes I will be more strict about it the next > time I'm running a Continental Qualifier the week after the release of a > new set that includes reprints. > Guaranteed to happen in Feb 2008, mark your calendar. :) Josh - You did a super job with the TotalCon weekend, it was a great time and overall everything was really smooth... don't let any of this discussion/bitching/moaning give you the wrong impression. - Pat

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:HuRVd.2246$Ru.1536@okepread06... > > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > news:BuCdnZmFcYi...@comcast.com... >>> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft] >> >> As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any >> V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun >> and the acquisition of "free stuff". >> I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before >> beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck. > > Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely > informally, > couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck? > We waited a few minutes... then we waited a few more minutes... then Eric came to the table and hadn't shuffled his newly-sleeved deck yet... It was all forgotten as soon as we started playing, and our table wound up finishing well before time for the round (we were a 4-player, and one of the others was a 5), but at the time it was going on, it was a little frustrating. BTW, no arguments at all with how Josh handled the situation... given that it was non-sanctioned, it was totally appropriate for everybody else to start and to just give us a couple extra minutes if we needed (which we didn't). - Pat

On 3 Mar 2005 14:57:41 -0800, <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the > event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However > midway through the tournament the time limit was changed - the first > two rounds had a time limit of 2.5 hours but the third round and the > final had a time limit of 2 hours. Bad thing. Should not happen. I strongly suggest you file a complaint to VEKN so that they destroy the sanctioned status of the tournament due to this irredularity. > In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had > been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a > significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in > the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four > players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification). > Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I > qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might > want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey, > then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston). Well, the 5th player in New Jersey got lucky, and the 9th in Boston got unlucky. All because of you... Shame. > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). I cannot disagree with this enough. Why would anyone in their right mind complain about reprints? They are the same cards, only with different layouts and expansion symbols. Seems pretty childish to me. (Not you in general, just the behaviour). > Now I understand that this is a difficult situation. If it were to > happen again, this is what I would suggest: Player A does not say > anything about having a way to save Player C, and simply allows Player > C to pack up. When Player B ends his turn, and the Anarch Revolts would > oust Player C, Player A plays the Life Boon. Reconstruct the game state > as best as possible but if the previous game state could not be fully > established then just let Player C sit there as a pool buffer. Since > Player C had already given up, treat him as if he were not going to > bother taking any actions or blocking. Fair enough. Though the player controlling Le Din could've foreseen it, and preemptively check to see the master deck's hand, just as the ousted player could've anticipated it. > The lesson from this experience is please please please don't > completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do > want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during > your turn if you miraculously do survive. Or just transfer out. Don't pack unless you are ousted; if you see no chance, wait for your turn, and then transfer out. Or offer to concede the game. There are options. > #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I > am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now > please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I > was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took > out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3 > or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually > constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most > of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my > fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the > time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled > out. Well, it is hard to judge this without knowing how much time was *objectively* spent on this. Did you somehow offend the players who "singled you out"? It is possible that they were just frustrated by you somehow, and found an excuse. I'm not sure, I don't like draft, and I don't really like being mean to others before the games. (During the game, I sometimes do those things, but not before - I like fellow VTES players, even if I can sometimes be a bit tenser at a game table.) > Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other > hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having > previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly > familiar with most of the cards we were drafting. I think though that you had an unfair advantage here. Nobody should be allowed to participate in more than a single prerelease event for any given set. Your example is good to show that being acquainted with the set gives you an unfair advantage over the other players. -- Bye, Daneel

None of these emails specifically address anything I wanted to comment on, so I must start yet another subthread. > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks... > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No > one spoke up. Untrue. I asked if any of said cards were "Anarch Revolt" or "Heart of Darkness." These were the only reprints with functional text changes. > Scott and I suggested that to avoid any sense of > impropriety, it might be easier to just find legal copies of those > cards and sub them in. Long before an announcement was made, at least one of the players was working to make his deck legal by borrowing cards. I offered to trade him some of mine. It was only when it began to appear that it might delay the tournament that I even considered allowing Josh to allow them. > The lesson from this experience is to please please please understand > what cards are tournament legal and which ones are not. I agree. Also note that, under 4.5, Josh was permitted to allow the KMW reprints, provided that he ensured that everyone have access to sufficient proxies - the only real reason to worry about the rarity of the reprints. > #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not > witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of > what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel > free to provide elaboration and/or corrections: > This totally sucks, and happened to me once. The best thing to say here is "You are not ousted until you are ousted. Put the cards back."

>> The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C >> >> It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts >> in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the >> Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and >> some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything >> else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all >> his cards and pack up >> The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning >> to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B >> used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon. > > > Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he > should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn". > With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure. > Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a > difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something > supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I > would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him > utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my turn. > What should the judge do ? > i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) The situation cannot be really solved, it愀 a big mess. I understand that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as strong hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A just because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to use Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used him for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the game win probably it was not, if you can愒 tell for sure you cannot do much about the situation. Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of time, like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn something. -- johannes walch

LSJ wrote: > echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of >> irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis. >> Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of >> whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some >> discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments >> and qualifiers. >> >> >> #1. > > > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the > time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final > may have a different time limit -- but that difference should > still be set in advance of the tournament). > So the tournament was against V:EKN rules, correct? Therefore the sanctioned status must be removed now and no one is qualified, gets rating points etc.., correct? -- johannes walch

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: |>#3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there |>was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not |>witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of |>what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel |>free to provide elaboration and/or corrections: | | This totally sucks, and happened to me once. The best thing to say here is | "You are not ousted until you are ousted. Put the cards back." Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the guy from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know that "Something is going to happen". Packing your stuff up before your turn starts in that situation is an eminently logical thing to do, since obviously player B will not ever do anything HIMSELF to prevent your being ousted. The only real solution is for player A to sit there, watch it happen, and then say "You're still alive -- now let's reconstruct the state." Otherwise, he tips his hand no matter what he does. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCKGmWtQZlu3o7QpERAtI+AKCl75qJQFBLTohl4GkB/nwqZ8DQngCff3zI WTNPC1tVBJiMSwtcpYWLDp8= =crmG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:25:58 +0100, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: >>> The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C >>> >>> It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts >>> in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the >>> Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and >>> some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything >>> else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all >>> his cards and pack up >>> The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning >>> to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B >>> used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon. >> >> >> Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he >> should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn". >> With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure. >> Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a >> difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something >> supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I >> would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him >> utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my >> turn. >> What should the judge do ? >> i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) > > The situation cannot be really solved, it´s a big mess. I understand > that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as strong > hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also > likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A just > because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR > deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to use > Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used him > for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the game > win probably it was not, if you can´t tell for sure you cannot do much > about the situation. > > Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of time, > like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn > something. I disagree. 1) Penalizing the next game is a poor idea that is not fair, and also naturally fails to work in about a third/half of the cases. 2) This is a game we play for fun. Packing up ahead of time may not be nice, as the pending VP can theoretically go any way, but for the player packing up the game is mostly over anyway. Kind of like transfering out. So while I don't encourage it, I don't think that harsh penalizing is of any use. Maybe milder penalties can be issued, so that the player realizes that his actions weren't exactly nice. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, I've always thought so. However, 3.1.1 doesn't say that. However the sanctioning request form does ask for the info. "3.1.1. Round Time Limits Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option." [clip] -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1109947234.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] ? "before play begins", right. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, LSJ wrote: > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the > time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final > may have a different time limit -- but that difference should > still be set in advance of the tournament). > > [VEKN 3.1.1] Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads: "Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option. <limited stuff> "The judge must announce when only 5 minutes remain in the current round. When the round is over the judge will direct all players to put their cards down. All play must immediately cease." It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me so much as says "each round will end at some point." "The time limit must be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin." In fact, that's what the judge for that event thought it did mean. When a player objected to the shortened round, the judge stated that he'd announced the time limit prior to the round beginning (true - I'd heard him even if everyone else hadn't) and quoted 3.1.1 to support his decision. Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more clear. Additionally, if we're going to be sticklers, I only rarely hear the five minute warning at tournaments and that's usually only when someone asks. Matt Morgan

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2005030408...@eris.io.com... > Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads: > > "Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit > used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before > play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, > at the judge's option. > > It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same > length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a > time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me > so much as says "each round will end at some point." "The time limit must > be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for > each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin." "The time limit" must be announced, yes. And a provision is made that the final may be longer (but not shorter) than the preliminary rounds. No provision is made for the preliminary rounds to vary. And the time limit must be announced before play begins. Not "between rounds" (after some play). > Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more > clear. Yes. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric's talk about irregularities brought up one of my pet peeves, which is tournaments starting late and ending late. I realize this is usually considered a courtesy to the folks running a little behind, but it's also a big "fuck you" to people who have to leave the event promptly. I do think it's more fair for latecomers to miss the first round than for people who show up on time to miss the final. But perhaps the V:EKN could come up with guidelines that would allow judges to run a first-round table with a shorter time limit for the benefit of latecomers. echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > #1. [Time Limits] I think tournament organizers need the power to change tournament time limits when they have to. So many things can happen that are out of the organizer's control, and they need to be able to adapt. That said, if a time limit is changed obviously everyone playing should be told before a round starts. Loud, repeated announcements at every table seem appropriate. > #2. [KMW Reprints Used] Kudos to the organizer for coming up with non-KMW versions of the cards in time. That was the best possible solution. Perhaps it would be helpful when announcing tournaments to point out any new rulings or cards that will not be tourney legal at that date. > [Scooping Cards and the Life Boon] I've been in A's position myself. Does C read this forum? What's his/her name? C, I'm totally going to burn your house down. :) We need to discourage people from scooping cards in casual play so that they know better at tournaments. > #4. [Sleeving during a draft] Eric, next time consider asking people who are idle to help you sleeve. Maybe people will volunteer to help next time instead of just griping.

The_Baital wrote: > reyda wrote: > > > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all > of > > > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak > up. No > > > one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it > and we > > > spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like > what > > > particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure > the > > > cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor, > > > Mylan Horseed, etc. > > > > This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D > > Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book ! > > Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and > uncommons > > ? just curious. > > my guess is that, if everyone packed some hard-to-find rares, there´d > be rouble finding legal copies of said cards, thus rending several > people´s decks completely illegal and then disqualifying them for > play, which would´ve been really counter-climatic and bogus. Yes, that is correct. If someone had 20 not-yet-legal copies of Information Highway, that personally wouldn't be a big deal to me. Info Highway is a common enough card and if push comes to shove, it shouldn't be too hard for an individual to borrow 20 copies of Info Highway. However, say it was a case of 20 not-yet-legal copies of War Ghoul. Excluding Trey and the Lasombra, I think I'd have a hard time borrowing 20 War Ghouls from all the players that I know - even if I contacted players across the country (and I imagine most other players would have difficulty borrowing 20 War Ghouls as well). And then at that case, then what's the difference between the not-yet-legal cards and proxies? Why should the player with a deck using 20 not-yet-legal cards be allowed to play when someone who has the exact same deck (except those 20 cards are proxies) cannot? And allowing proxies in a sanctioned non-limited tournament opens a different can of worms. - Eric Chiang

LSJ wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1109947234.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, > > > > I've always thought so. However, 3.1.1 doesn't say that. However the > > sanctioning request form does ask for the info. > > > > "3.1.1. Round Time Limits > > Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit > > used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced > > before play begins. The final round may last longer than the > > preliminary rounds, at the judge's option." > > > ? > "before play begins", right. Well yeah. "Announcing the time limit before play begins" is "in advance of the tournament". However, I had always interpreted that to mean something more like what is said about set restrictions ("advertised prior"). -Robert

Johannes Walch wrote: > The situation cannot be really solved, it´s a big mess. I understand > that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as strong > hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also > likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A just > because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR > deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to use > Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used him > for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the game > win probably it was not, if you can´t tell for sure you cannot do much > about the situation. > > Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of time, > like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn something. >From what I hear, after the game Player B told Player A that he "might have" used Le Dinh Tho's ability anyway. Though at this point we have to wander into counterfactual "what if" scenarios - I guess we'll never truly know what would have happened otherwise. Then again, at one of my rounds in the Qualifier, my grandpredator (a different player) brought out Le Dinh Tho and used him several times against my predator. However, he never used Le Dinh Tho against any other player, even after he and I had ousted our respective preys (making him my new predator). He was playing Giovanni bleed and I was sitting for around 3 or 4 turns with a key Retribution in my hand, knowing that card would be gone if he used Le Dinh Tho. Up till the very end of the game, when I managed to squeak out a game win, he never bothered to look at my hand at all. So I guess the lesson is that when it comes to Le Dinh Tho, who knows what's gonna happen! - Eric Chiang

Frederick Scott wrote: > There's two issues here. One is just the concept of changing the time > limit at all. In this case, the change was modest but it still makes > a difference. People could build decks that are even sensative to the > difference between a two hour and a two-and-a-half hour time limit. I > think there's a lot of tournament organizers out there who are annoyingly > oblivious to what effects their "minor changes" have on players. I'd > say such organizers should be slapped a couple of times to get their > attention except they're usually volunteers donativing their time for the > common good and who often have a lot of other shit to worry about. > > Changing the time limit of a round without making sure all the players > are aware of it AT THE START OF THE GAME is really bad, though! That > could cost someone big time - either a qualifying shot or a chance at > the finals. Hopefully, this will get corrected somehow. (By "corrected", > I mean the organizer being made aware that this happened and it isn't an > acceptable way to run a sanctioned tournament, let alone a qualifier). Yes, during this round I spent the first hour under the impression that we had a total of 2.5 hours. I was playing combat and my prey was playing Tzimisce so since I was worried about getting obliterated I initially took a very cautious approach, waiting for the right time to strike. If I had known that we had less time than I thought, I would have mobilized my forces sooner. > > #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there > > was initially a problem because a handful of players had included > > reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks > > (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none > > of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet). > > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of > > You're not clear about this. You mean, they indended to _allow_ this? > The organizers have to know the rules about legal decks. I have no > problem with taking a little extra time and allowing players to make > their decks legal, however they need to do it (including finding legal > copies of illegal cards). But they shouldn't be expecting other players > to tolerate illegal decks, even if by virtue of reprinted not-yet-legal > cards. (Yea, I know it's kind of a funky rule and I personally don't > agree with it. But rules are rules and it does make a difference.) Others have already mentioned it but to clarify: yes, they intended to allow this [the usage of reprinted cards from the not-yet-legal KMW set]. > One thing player A could do is call a judge over and have him make > player C cease what he's doing without explaining why. That, at > least, may give him a chance of not getting a visit from Mr. Tho. As Derek has mentioned, this may seem out of the ordinary and could very well tip one's hand. Player B might wonder, "hey, why is he making such a big deal out of this...?" - Eric Chiang

On 4 Mar 2005 08:15:54 -0800, <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes, that is correct. If someone had 20 not-yet-legal copies of > Information Highway, that personally wouldn't be a big deal to me. Info > Highway is a common enough card and if push comes to shove, it > shouldn't be too hard for an individual to borrow 20 copies of Info > Highway. However, say it was a case of 20 not-yet-legal copies of War > Ghoul. Excluding Trey and the Lasombra, I think I'd have a hard time > borrowing 20 War Ghouls from all the players that I know - even if I > contacted players across the country (and I imagine most other players > would have difficulty borrowing 20 War Ghouls as well). And then at > that case, then what's the difference between the not-yet-legal cards > and proxies? Why should the player with a deck using 20 not-yet-legal > cards be allowed to play when someone who has the exact same deck > (except those 20 cards are proxies) cannot? And allowing proxies in a > sanctioned non-limited tournament opens a different can of worms. This is oxcrap. I'm not saying proxies should be allowed, but having a problema with cards that have been already printed seems foolhardy. I mean, you saw War Ghoul decks in the past, so what's the problem with seeing another one of them now? The card has been around for ages. No surprise there, really. The only reason I can see for having a rule that restricts new rules and cards to be used is to give players time to buy, trade and generally get a hold of the new stuff. The only reason I see in restricting the cards printed in a new set from being used is to avoid the "I thought it was in #(insert random set), so I can play it". The only reason I see in keeping that rule if we're only talking about reprints is for the sake of keeping rules. I remember putting a freshly opened Anarchs My Enemy's Enemy into my deck when my Sabbat and Sabbat War copies were in other decks when Anarchs was not tourney legal yet only to have some asshole complain about it. The point? None, really. Let's change the rules to allow reprints to be used ASAP. Though a rule about disallowing borrowed cards to be used would be nice. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Johannes Walch wrote: > So the tournament was against V:EKN rules, correct? > Therefore the sanctioned status must be removed now and no one is > qualified, gets rating points etc.., correct? I'm also very curious about whether or not these issues will (or should) make the tournament 'invalid' under 9.4 of the event rules... (And not just because it'll affect whether or not certain people count as already qualified for the purposes of my own region's Qualifier next month. :P ) > johannes walch -John Flournoy

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Eric, next time consider asking people who are idle to help you sleeve. > Maybe people will volunteer to help next time instead of just griping. They may volunteer, but unless they brought along their body-condoms I doubt the offer would be accepted. Yes, Eric, I'm calling you a nut. But an extremely well-dressed one. ;) -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Daneel wrote: >Let's change the rules to allow reprints to be used ASAP. That would be a welcome simplification without any real disadvantages, as far as I judge it. -- johannes walch

Peter D Bakija wrote: > For my money, I understand why even reprinted new release cards are not > allowed for 30 days, as they might have different text that would cause some > confusion. This makes sense to me. This being said, I am completely > unconcerned with whether or not my opponents have, like, extra hard to get > rares or more Blood Dolls as the result of them being in not yet allowed > starters, or whatever, and for my money, I'd be perfectly happy if you could > use new reprints immediately. But understanding the problem that could be > caused by new wording on cards, I accept the current plan (although, it > isn't any more confusing to use non re-worded old cards, like Jyhad Wakes, > or whatever). In the situation as it occured, I was perfectly happy to see > people play with the cards they were using, even if they were from the new > set, as it made everyone's life easier. I would have expected someone who > had a problem with it, however, to make their concerns known. And someone > did, and it was fixed. Yes, I definitely agree with you (and the current rules) regarding not allowing new cards (including reprinted ones) to be legal for 30 days. #1. As you noted, the most important is regarding any text changes. New copies with new text might be very confusing. #2. Allowing *some* of the new set cards to be used but not others (say allowing reprinted cards to be used but not "new" ones) can be problematic. Especially if there's confusion, "I *thought* this card was a reprint..." It's easier to just have a blanket "don't use cards with this expansion symbol" rule (with an exception to some promos that might have been released earlier). #3. 30 days is a reasonable amount of time to ensure everyone has sufficient time to access the new cards. It might have seemed odd if right after Heidelberg, someone showed up with an Army of Nephandi deck using the new not-yet-legal version. Or if someone attends a Saturday Pre-Release and then plays in a Saturday night tournament using all of the new reprints. (Not only is he using cards that aren't legal yet, but they aren't even officially released yet!). Etc. In short, the 30-day rule is there for a good reason and I definitely think it should stay in place. - Eric Chiang

[ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. > johannes walch -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] The main reason I brought up the issues is that I feel that Qualifiers (and Championships) should have a higher bar when it comes to standards. Now I do understand that most tournaments probably aren't going to be perfect, and something irregular may occur. I think that a violation should not automatically make a tournament "invalid." Doing so would have a serious negative impact on tournament attendence. Since most of these matters are well out of the control of the players, it does not seem fair that they would be penalized based on a decision that was out of their hands. In addition, if such an event (like the NJ qualifier) *were* made invalid, players might think "why bother even attending an event? I can do really well and win the tournament but if someone else goofed up, then everything is for naught!" - Eric Chiang

Daneel wrote: > > Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other > > hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having > > previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly > > familiar with most of the cards we were drafting. > > I think though that you had an unfair advantage here. Nobody should > be allowed to participate in more than a single prerelease event for > any given set. Your example is good to show that being acquainted > with the set gives you an unfair advantage over the other players. I disagree that this constitutes an "unfair advantage." I knew several of the other players at the event who had also attended two KMW pre-releases. Restricting players to a single pre-release is a bad idea for several reasons. - Since pre-releases are non-sanctioned (and there may be a variation of rules/procedures/format), not a lot of detailed record-keeping is done. Requiring detailed reports to make sure players don't attend multiple events just adds to the work overhead that White Wolf and VEKN already have to deal with. - Such a restriction would decrease participation and weaken the relationships between different playgroups. At least in my area, there was quite a lot of proliferation among different playgroups for the different pre-releases. It really helps in building bridges and reaching out to other groups. In addition, being "acquainted with the set" as a result of playing in a pair of pre-releases isn't necessarily a significant advantage. A different player could easily gather as much info by reading the spoilers on the newsgroup. Should players also be banned from accessing the newsgroup prior to such an event? Hmmm...maybe the best solution is to require players to remain in a sensory deprivation chamber for 30 days prior to the event. That way they won't be able to gain an unfair advantage... To further elaborate, why is it an "unfair advantage" to have attended previous events? On that basis, maybe Josh Duffin and Ben Peal should be banned from all limited draft events. Since they have played so many limited games, surely they have an "unfair advantage", especially if they play in a limited event with a newbie. ::sighs:: - Eric Chiang

On 4 Mar 2005 09:01:59 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Me too (not to change this thread in any form of signature list). It's more intuitive a solution. Every time I tell a player that new rules cards take 30 days to be legal to play, most assume that it does not include reprints of old ones. The worst scenario I see is some organizer/judge/prince getting confused with when each card was released ("Approximation of Loyalty... is it a new card?") because they couldn't keep up with the latest releases. That is left for them to resolve, though - they *should* know or print cardlistings... best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now) http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/

Derek Ray wrote: > Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the guy > from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know > that "Something is going to happen". Packing your stuff up before your > turn starts in that situation is an eminently logical thing to do, since > obviously player B will not ever do anything HIMSELF to prevent your > being ousted. > > The only real solution is for player A to sit there, watch it happen, > and then say "You're still alive -- now let's reconstruct the state." > Otherwise, he tips his hand no matter what he does. Yep. Sometimes when I'm bored I play Yahoo Chess. In Yahoo Chess, if you make a mistake, you can request a takeback. In that case, a box appears on your opponent's screen telling him that you're requesting a takeback and he has the option to allow it or not. Whenever someone requests a takeback, it's a red flag for something out of the ordinary. There have been plenty of times when I did not initially realize that my opponent had made a critical mistake. But then when he asks for a takeback, I think "hey, something is up" which makes me scrutinize the situation more carefully. As a result, whenever I make a mistake of my own, I find it's better to just hope that my opponent misses it, as opposed to alerting him that something is out of the ordinary and putting me at the mercy of whether he'll let me take back the move. (Since this is Chess, note that these are PLAY mistakes, not RULE mistakes). - Eric Chiang

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > #2. Allowing *some* of the new set cards to be used but not others (say > allowing reprinted cards to be used but not "new" ones) can be > problematic. Especially if there's confusion, "I *thought* this card > was a reprint..." It's easier to just have a blanket "don't use cards > with this expansion symbol" rule (with an exception to some promos that > might have been released earlier). The reason I originally wanted to let it go this past weekend was that I knew exactly which cards they were, and that none of them were hard-to-find pre-KMW (except maybe one Dreams of the Sphinx, for which a replacement was found immediately anyway). Also some people had paid significant money to be there, and I didn't want to invalidate their travel expenses because of a minor screwup. However, I am fully supportive of the rule in general. It is especially sticky with things that have changed rarity, and things like Anarch Revolt, where they are technically "reprints" but functionally different. I was actually hoping that the KMW release would be delayed for a few days so that the Sunday event could have been a true Prerelease. Alas, I was still able to call it one, but it would have saved us from this problem if the cards had not been in circulation at all :)

I imagine there are mistakes made in every tournament. So long as the mistakes are unintentional (and not "gross negligence", etc.), I don't see any purpose served by retroactively unsanctioning all of them. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I imagine there are mistakes made in every tournament. Especially in how I play lately, sheesh! > So long as the mistakes are unintentional (and not "gross negligence", > etc.), I don't see any purpose served by retroactively unsanctioning > all of them. Sounds good to me. > LSJ -John Flournoy

> That would be a welcome simplification without any real disadvantages, > as far as I judge it. I think it could be pretty bad. After all, what if someone doesn't remember what was and wasn't a reprint? The people who are making these mistakes are people who aren't careful enough to bring legal decks to the table to begin with. What makes you think that one mistake is less likely than the other? Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Emmit Svenson wrote: > > > Eric, next time consider asking people who are idle to help you sleeve. > > Maybe people will volunteer to help next time instead of just griping. > > They may volunteer, but unless they brought along their body-condoms I > doubt the offer would be accepted. > > Yes, Eric, I'm calling you a nut. But an extremely well-dressed one. ;) When I'd heard the name "The Little Tailor" applied to Eric I was cracking up. IMO, it's a perfect nickname for him. -Robert

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >> That would be a welcome simplification without any real disadvantages, >> as far as I judge it. > > I think it could be pretty bad. After all, what if someone doesn't > remember what was and wasn't a reprint? What if people don't remember that an old card has new text? This kind of "what if" doesn't concern me. Players need to take a moment to understand tournament rules deck construction. It's not difficult, with or without such a change. If they can't do that, then they're going to have problems either way so I don't care. Besides, I also don't think it's much of an "attractive nuisance" anyway. > What makes you think that one mistake is less likely > than the other? I don't know about others but for me, it's not so much an issue of eliminating the potential for mistakes. It's more an issue of, why does this rule even need to exist? The reasons for it I can think of don't strike me as being very good ones. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Ka2Wd.2649$Ru.1086@okepread06... > > "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message > news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > > What makes you think that one mistake is less likely > > than the other? > > I don't know about others but for me, it's not so much an issue > of eliminating the potential for mistakes. It's more an issue > of, why does this rule even need to exist? The reasons for it > I can think of don't strike me as being very good ones. It seems to me that the reason for the "no cards, even reprints, within 30 days of set release" rule is mainly that in any given set, WW *could* change the cardtext of *all* the reprints. Sure, it's not terribly hard to remember that Anarch Revolt and Heart of Darkness were changed in KMW, and so those copies of new cards wouldn't be legal until 30 days out while the rest would - but it does have the potential to be a problem, if more cards are changed. Also, while I think you're right that the existence of *earlier* printings that don't do what they say is almost as bad as newer printings that don't (yet) do what they say, it seems to me that this problem (cards not doing what they say) is one that it's better not to exacerbate any more than necessary. (I probably wouldn't have changed Heart of Darkness's text, if it were up to me, for example. ;-) Josh unreprintable

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2005030408...@eris.io.com... > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, LSJ wrote: >> The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the >> time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final >> may have a different time limit -- but that difference should >> still be set in advance of the tournament). >> >> [VEKN 3.1.1] > > Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads: > > "Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit > used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before > play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, > at the judge's option. ... > It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same > length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a > time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me > so much as says "each round will end at some point." I agree that it could be worded that way straight out, not by inference, and it would be much more clear. But if there's a sentence that reads, "The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds", that pretty much seems to also infer: 1) The final round may not have a SHORTER time limit than any of the preliminary rounds; and 2) Any preliminary round may NOT be longer than any (other) preliminary round. I'm not sure what else that sentence is suppose to mean. And it must mean something, so those two things seem to be it. > "The time limit must > be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for > each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin." That's adding something that just plain isn't there. You shouldn't do that. > Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more clear. The misinterpretation was certainly a mistake. Still, I agree with you. Where common and easily understandable mistakes occur, why not type in a few more words and avoid them? And this seems like a good example. Fred

Chris Berger wrote: > You've never sat and watched Eric sleeve. I think > he has to sterilize each sleeve before he lets them > touch his cards. This is true. > Oh, and it's very distracting to him if he plays a card > on one of your vamps and you take it out of its sleeve > and touch it while he's taking his turn. Not that I If you have been eating food within the last, even if you have wiped your hands thoroughly, it also adds additional fun to the scene. > would ever do that. ;) Although it's odd, I > haven't seen him play with Charnas the Imp lately... Heh. Xian

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1109949298.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Eric's talk about irregularities brought up one of my pet peeves, which > is tournaments starting late and ending late. I realize this is usually > considered a courtesy to the folks running a little behind, but it's > also a big "fuck you" to people who have to leave the event promptly. "Leave the event promptly"? What IS "(leaving) the event promptly"? You sound as if you think there's some gurantee of how long an event should take. If you attend an event that's billed as 2R + F with all two-hour time limits and begins at noon, you shouldn't be planning on leaving by 6:30 or 7 PM. There could be any number of delays, particularly including rules debates that take time to resolve and thus extend a round's timing considerably. Where your pet peeve is valid, IME, has to do with tournaments bending over backwards to accommadate the late people so far that it's sort of abusive to the prompt people - those who showed up on time and are now sitting around, bored, because they thought a tournament was supposed to start at noon (or whatever time it was scheduled). Worse, this sends the message that lateness is tolerated and expected, so people stop bothering to show up on time at all - after all, why show up spot on noon if it's just more time you're going to spend sitting around waiting for others to show up? I'm a habitually late person myself, though I make an effort to defeat that inclination whenever possible. Thus, I really like it when a tournament organizer is understanding about lateness and doesn't just drop you like a hot potatoe if you walk in 30 seconds late. Or even holds things up if someone calls his cell and tells him he'll show up in another 5 or 10 minutes. But if it starts getting to be the better part of an hour or so waiting for someone who promised to show up and isn't here and no one's heard from him, that's abusive of the people who bothered to be on time. Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: > When I'd heard the name "The Little Tailor" applied to Eric I was > cracking up. IMO, it's a perfect nickname for him. Yeah, if Little Tailor ever gets advanced, I nominate a likeness of Eric for the artwork. On second thought, maybe we can just use his face, but dress him up in a zipper-infested 1980's fashion abortion. Jeff Thompson shouldn't be the only one who has to suffer. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <W8OVd.2121$Ru.1890@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >There's two issues here. One is just the concept of changing the time >limit at all. In this case, the change was modest but it still makes >a difference. People could build decks that are even sensative to the >difference between a two hour and a two-and-a-half hour time limit. I >think there's a lot of tournament organizers out there who are annoyingly >oblivious to what effects their "minor changes" have on players. I'd >say such organizers should be slapped a couple of times to get their >attention except they're usually volunteers donativing their time for the >common good and who often have a lot of other shit to worry about. Binding an organiser's hands on such matters is awkward too. For instance, you have a back room booked at a local bar. You all turn up at the appointed hour, ready to play your three hour extravaganza rounds. Then the staff run up to you and point out that the incompetent girl they had answering the phone was very inconsiderate and double booked the room and it's only just come to light and well, it's a wedding reception and would you mind terribly if you could just cut everything short by an hour, maybe two? Certainly, changing timings on a whim is bad, but at the same time it's something that can need to happen. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

In message <SO2Wd.2908$Ru.1385@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"Leave the event promptly"? What IS "(leaving) the event promptly"? >You sound as if you think there's some gurantee of how long an event >should take. If you attend an event that's billed as 2R + F with all >two-hour time limits and begins at noon, you shouldn't be planning on >leaving by 6:30 or 7 PM. There could be any number of delays, >particularly including rules debates that take time to resolve and >thus extend a round's timing considerably. Many tournaments I've been at have been "delayed" (in the sense of not running to exactly the time limit times the number of rounds) by, for instance, a round going to time and the players who were left in wanting to get a drink, smoke a cigarette, visit the toilet, grab a bag of crisps or whatever else might be appropriate at the venue. Given that the people who got ousted after an hour have had the chance to do all this sort of thing already, it seems simple courtesy to let other players have a few minutes to sort themselves out. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:+2bxL6iI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Certainly, changing timings on a whim is bad, but at the same time it's > something that can need to happen. Agreed, as I indicated in my response to Robert Goudie's post. Keeping the time limit as announced is the ideal. But occasionally stuff happens that requires it to take a back seat to another priority. I've just gotten annoyed by certain organizers I've run across in the past (in Magic tournaments more than Jyhad) who seem oblivious to the notion that changing tournament rules, conditions, formats or whatever from what had been advertised beforehand is a bad thing that ought to be avoided just for its own sake. Fred

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > In short, the 30-day rule is there for a good reason and I definitely > think it should stay in place. Don't get me wrong here--I have no problem with this rule (no reprints for 30 days, along with the new cards), and certainly don't think that right before a tournament starts is a good time to challenge the status quo. This being said, I don't think what happened at the Qualifier was a problem, nor did I think it was a problem at the time. We have judges. I trust their judgement (otherwise, the whole concept of a judge is pointless). At the time, the judgement of the judges was "Well, technically, it is illegal that a couple guys have some KMW copies of Swallowed by the Night and Blood Doll, or whaveter, but in the name of getting the game started and no one getting DQ'ed pointlessly, let's just not worry about it...", which strikes me as perfectly reasonable. As I said earlier, if anyone had expressed their displeasure with this call publicly, I would have defended them, 'cause in the end, they would be right. But in the end, I can't see why anyone would care, it being against the rules or no. Some rules it is important to adhere to, as it has an effect on the game. Other rules, like this one in particular, it doesn't strike me at all as unreasonable to work around in some circumstances, in the name of making the tournament go. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > The main reason I brought up the issues is that I feel that Qualifiers > (and Championships) should have a higher bar when it comes to > standards. I completely agree. But I also think that certain situations warrant a certain amount of leeway, especially in situations where, in the end, there is no negative effect on anything or anyone (like the KMW reprint situation). [ quoted text not captured ]

> Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the guy > from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know > that "Something is going to happen". Packing your stuff up before your > turn starts in that situation is an eminently logical thing to do, since > obviously player B will not ever do anything HIMSELF to prevent your > being ousted. > Untrue. In round three of the qualifier, I would have been ousted during my next untap phase had time not been called. With two minutes remaining, my predator began making a deal with my prey so they could mutually withdraw - forgetting that it was still his turn and I was still not ousted. Because I did not pack up my cards, I did not remind them of the extra VP and as a result, I was still in the game when time was called. "You're not ousted till you're ousted" is not tipping your hand, it is enforcing the rules of the game.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 echia...@yahoo.com wrote: | | In addition, being "acquainted with the set" as a result of playing in | a pair of pre-releases isn't necessarily a significant advantage. A In fact, it's not really an advantage at all. It does no good to know what the Uber Combo is unless you actually have all the cards necessary available to draft. If you never see the "I Win" card, did it matter that you knew it was coming? Of course it didn't. Everyone else can read the cards just as well as you can -- when the disciplineless +2 bleed modifier comes by, they'll recognize the value and snatch it up at THEIR first opportunity. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCKOmotQZlu3o7QpERAm90AJ9QFONvCdbXj2nDxWLV/S2FIl3gxgCeI9sy T6PWMdEBeUiqIj0BvBdqc5s= =U41v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: |>Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the guy |>from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know |>that "Something is going to happen". Packing your stuff up before your |>turn starts in that situation is an eminently logical thing to do, since |>obviously player B will not ever do anything HIMSELF to prevent your |>being ousted. | | Untrue. In round three of the qualifier, I would have been ousted during | my next untap phase had time not been called. With two minutes remaining, | my predator began making a deal with my prey so they could mutually | withdraw - forgetting that it was still his turn and I was still not | ousted. Because I did not pack up my cards, I did not remind them of the | extra VP and as a result, I was still in the game when time was called. A single corner-case example doesn't make the statement untrue, sorry. Player B is not intentionally going to help you avoid being ousted unless it gains him some significant benefit. Showing an anecdote where player B was unintentionally careless demonstrates nothing. | "You're not ousted till you're ousted" is not tipping your hand, it is | enforcing the rules of the game. And what are you going to do when a frustrated player breaks those rules? He's already ousted, you can't hurt him any more. And you can't chain him to his chair. Penalize him in future rounds? That has been debunked as foolish in another thread. People scooping in what appears to be a 100% lost position is a fact of life. It'd be nicer if people didn't do it, true, but there's no way to enforce it; you just have to think fast on your feet. Player A in the example didn't, and that may have cost him a VP -- sadness. Learn from the example, and move on. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCKOs8tQZlu3o7QpERAvsEAKCFDYQGjqhRVcpqjt3FhZ+IiZ8HPwCfaZ6K 4Iti9rzY+6vSaD6UOA+bDxM= =lqHj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[some posts edited for brevity.] > > > > I personally wanted to make sure the cards weren't hard-to-get > > > > rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor, Mylan Horseed, etc. > > > > > > This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D > > > just curious. > > > > my guess is that, if everyone packed some hard-to-find rares, there´d > > be rouble finding legal copies of said cards, thus rending several > > people´s decks completely illegal and then disqualifying them for > > play, which would´ve been really counter-climatic and bogus. > > Yes, that is correct. If someone had 20 not-yet-legal copies of > Information Highway, that personally wouldn't be a big deal to me. Info > Highway is a common enough card and if push comes to shove, it shouldn't > be too hard for an individual to borrow 20 copies of Info Highway. > However, say it was a case of 20 not-yet-legal copies of War Ghoul... > then what's the difference between the not-yet-legal cards and proxies? > Why should the player with a deck using 20 not-yet-legal cards be > allowed to play when someone who has the exact same deck (except those > 20 cards are proxies) cannot? And allowing proxies in a sanctioned > non-limited tournament opens a different can of worms. > I don't like the plutocentrism here. All of the not-quite-legal cards were proxies. A player who shows up with 20 brand new War Ghoul reprints isn't breaking the rules any more than someone who shows up with one Blood Doll reprint and there's no good reason to draw a line between them. The difference here is intent. A player who puts the not-quite-legal cards in his deck puts them in there because he mistakenly believes they are legal (or because he is cheating). A player who puts in cards that are blatantly not what they say they are is cheating. In the case of the NEQ, it was determined that the players who put KMW cards in were not cheating and that is the only reason why they were allowed to use the cards.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:58:46 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: >|>#3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there >|>was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not >|>witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of >|>what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel >|>free to provide elaboration and/or corrections: >| >| This totally sucks, and happened to me once. The best thing to say here is >| "You are not ousted until you are ousted. Put the cards back." > >Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the guy >from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know >that "Something is going to happen". that's why i always do it. i get narky at anyone who packs up before they're dead. (good naturedly narky, though). even in social games, just to try and get people into the habit of not preemptively packing up. even when there is no reason for them not to pack up, because we know no one is going to save them. fix people's habits, and it can help smooth things along when playing 'seriously'. (as seriously as you can play a game about rotating pieces of carboard covered in beads). salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

> I don't know about others but for me, it's not so much an issue > of eliminating the potential for mistakes. It's more an issue > of, why does this rule even need to exist? The reasons for it > I can think of don't strike me as being very good ones. Which rule? The rule of not playing with new cards until 30 days later? If you're ok with that, the rest follows. (See my previous argument.) If not, see earlier posts in this thread about possibly abusing "special" access to the cards prior to what's a reasonable time to expect those who play to get cards. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, Ankur. My newsreading service is usually pretty good but I just can't find any previous post you'd made in this thread. I'll address the things I've seen people (possibly you) say about this. I agree that unequal access to new cards is probably a good reason for the 30 day rule in general. Where reprints are concerned, however, the rule is just more problem than it's worth. This is a judgement thing and I'll freely admit this is just my opinion. But: 1) I don't see the point of worrying about someone's access to a KMW Dreams of the Sphinx when there are already legal copies of Dreams of the Sphinx in circulation. If you want to point to one person's superior ability to get a new KMW Dreams of the Sphinx over someone else, I will point backwards at some players who have been playing longer having likewise a superior ability to get old Dreams of the Sphinx in comparison to newer players. I just don't care about this. It's a good rule for new cards. Plus, there's several other good reasons to apply it to new cards such as giving players and judges the chance to learn about new cards and giving LSJ the chance to rule on and make known his rulings on new cards that have new abilities and affect the game in hitherto unknown ways. But it's not worth bothering with for reprints. 2) It causes confusion. People see that a card's a reprint, they expect it to be legal to play because it already _is_ legal to play in other forms. What happened at the NE Regional Qualifier is a classic example. Of course, people should know the deck construction rules and I'm not making excuses. But every nuance you throw into the deck construction rules is one more detail people will tend to forget occasionally and when they do, it causes problems. So if it's not a necessary nuance - get rid of it for the common good. I don't feel this is a necessary nuance. Probably not the most important issue in the world, I'll grant. But there you are. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I agree that unequal access to new cards is probably a > good reason for the 30 day rule in general. Where > reprints are concerned, however, the rule is just more > problem than it's worth. This is a judgement thing and > I'll freely admit this is just my opinion. But: Surely it's easier to draw a line in the sand, and simply rule out any cards from the newest set. Adherence to it can be easily verified by checking for the symbol from the new set. That way, assuming you are holding a constructed tournament within the first 30 days after a set is released, you don't have to carefully dig through each deck to verify that card X isn't in there, but if you find card Y, it's okay. (Assuming you were going to do that in the first place.) I agree that it's a little nitpicky, but the current setup probably avoids more problems than it creates. As far as causing confusion re: reprints, surely the possibility exists that allowing "reprints" to be playable, but not "new" cards, you would either have to define what is a reprint in the new set or rely on players to make that distinction. Assuming the latter, I can imagine a case where a new player finds a neat "new" card (that is in fact, a reprint of a card that newbie hasn't seen before) and wants to build a deck around it but doesn't. Then in the tournament sees someone else playing with it, and rails against the old boys network/knowledge that clued other people into the fact that card X was a reprint, but he didn't know of. I guess I just think that if a clear distinction can be drawn, it's easier to take that route (no cards from the new set) than to divide it up into (reprints are okay, unless they're functionally changed). I'm not sure you were arguing that latter point, but that's presumably the way it would have to go. Xian

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1110224026.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > As far as causing confusion re: reprints, surely the possibility exists > that allowing "reprints" to be playable, but not "new" cards, you would > either have to define what is a reprint in the new set or rely on > players to make that distinction. Assuming the latter, I can imagine a > case where a new player finds a neat "new" card (that is in fact, a > reprint of a card that newbie hasn't seen before) and wants to build a > deck around it but doesn't. Then in the tournament sees someone else > playing with it, and rails against the old boys network/knowledge that > clued other people into the fact that card X was a reprint, but he > didn't know of. Just to address this point (the rest just seems like judgement and not worth going back and forth on), the distinction is usually made on card name. Of course, in this CCG, the card names seems to change from time to time (and I don't know why they do that but it's happened a LOT more often than it should have :-P ) so this could be more of a problem than in other games. But it should normally not be difficult for any player to tell whether a card's a reprint vs. a new card. In fact, Magic has the reprints-allowed-immediately-new-cards- must-wait-30-days distinction and it seemed to me to cause less problems than this rule causes V:tES. At least, that's my vague perception. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Dunno about Magic, I haven't been playing lately, but I kind of agree on the card name thing. I'd say that when a new set comes out - like KMW did now - the reprinted cards should become tournament legal immediately. Cards whose texts changed should either be exceptions, or the copies with the new text should only be allowed provisionally (that is, noting that the card does not yet do what is written on it). -- Bye, Daneel

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >A.) Should reprinted cards obtained through a pre-release be legal >immediately? Yes. >B.) In the past there have been occasions when a set was made available >even before the pre-release. For example, for the Black Hand expansion, >cards were first available at some White Wolf sponsored LARP Con. Now >this was over a week before even the pre-releases (which were in turn a >few days before the set was officially released). In such an occasion, >should the reprinted cards be legal immediately? Yes. >C.) If cards were obtained illegally before the official release date >(say someone broke into the White Wolf warehouse and stole the new >cards), should they be tournament legal immediately? I don't see any reason why not. Other than, like, for legal reasons involving posession of stolen goods. But that has nothing to do with game play. > So...where do you want to draw the line in the sand? And why do you > think this line is better than the one already drawn? I think the proposed line is fairly clear--functionally identical reprints are legal as soon as you have them in your posession, be it from a pre-release, a pre-pre-release, or a knocked over delivery truck. *When* the cards get to you is irrelevant--a Blood Doll is a Blood Doll is a Blood Doll, regardless of the date of release. New cards or changed cards should not be legal for 30 days, but as proposed by various folks, functionally identical reprints should be legal at all times. For my money, that reprinted cards are extra available from a new set in starters, or whatever, is irrelevant. That someone has theoretically "easier" access to Call the Great Beast or Dreams of the Sphinx in starters from the new set has no impact, in my mind, on competetive play. If someone can, the day a new set comes out, go out and buy enough starters to build a Call the Great Beast deck and use it in a tournament the next day? More power to them--there were already Call the Great Beasts available to him, so I see no functional difference between buying ten CtGB for $20.00 each off of E-bay or buying ten CtGB in starters. There is an argumant to be made, certainly, that the current system is easier--just *all* cards from a given set are illegal for 30 days, which prevents confusion from new and re-written cards before everyone has seen them, and this easy system leaves us with functionally identical reprints getting swept up in the easy fix. But personally, I don't think there really is any reasonable justification, other than "it's just easier that way", to keep people from using functionally identical reprints from a new set immediately. Granted, "it's just easier that way" is a not insignificant argument, but I'd much rather see a system of "new cards and newly worded cards are illegal for 30 days, functionally identical reprints are legal immediately", 'cause I see no significant reason other than "it's just easier that way" to keep them out of play for those 30 days. [ quoted text not captured ]

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110236642.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Following this line of reasoning (allowing cards to become legal > immediately instead of waiting a set period of time), then: Specifically, I'm assuming you refer to "reprinted cards" meaning cards in a new expansion which have the same name as previously printed cards and are intended - when the whole set is legal - to do the same thing as the like named cards (even if they have new text and the old versions of the cards will change function). Daneel is correct that such reprinted cards would have to function under old rules. Hence, in the case of KMW, new Anarch Revolts would function under old Anarch Revolt text until March 23rd. This is a bit inconvenient, but certainly no more so than requiring that old Anarch Revolts to function under the new AR card text after March 23rd. > A.) Should reprinted cards obtained through a pre-release be legal > immediately? Pre-releases occur a few days before the set is released > but there is still a window for possible constructed tourneys. Sure. Absolutely. Why not? > B.) In the past there have been occasions when a set was made available > even before the pre-release. For example, for the Black Hand expansion, > cards were first available at some White Wolf sponsored LARP Con. Now > this was over a week before even the pre-releases (which were in turn a > few days before the set was officially released). In such an occasion, > should the reprinted cards be legal immediately? Sure. Absolutely. Why not? > C.) If cards were obtained illegally before the official release date > (say someone broke into the White Wolf warehouse and stole the new > cards), should they be tournament legal immediately?t. Well, first and foremost: you're under arrest. But, while we're waiting for the cops to arrive, I suppose it would be all right if you played in the tournament with your reprint new edition cards. Remember, until March 23rd, Anarch Revolt makes no exceptions. (Hopefully, the cops will be here by then.) > If you want, you > can add in the additional complication that the set was also available > early (via the LARP Con for example), so it would be difficult to > determine if a copy of the card was properly acquired or not Aw, you're no fun. But go ahead play anyway. See above. > So...where do you want to draw the line in the sand? I'm confused why you think any line needs to be drawn. Er, except the illegal thing. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I'm confused why you think any line needs to be drawn. Er, except the > illegal thing. Illegalities aside, I find it refreshing that Fred and I are on the apparent exact same page here :-) Eric is looking for a line, and as I mentioned earlier, I think the line is an easy one to draw--functionally identical reprints (cards with the same name and functionally the same text) should be legal for play as soon as you get them in your grubby little hands. New cards and cards with new wording should be illegal for 30 days. See, there are two, essentntially exclusive, issues at hand here: A) New cards and newly worded cards are confusing and potentially unfair to people who haven't seen them yet in competetive play. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable issue, that is addressed by having new and reworded cards illegal for 30 days. Makes perfect sense to me. B) Access to old cards in new sets is somehow unfair to people who don't have access to the new cards yet. This strikes me as a preposterous issue. The above issue (i.e. issue "A") is perfectly logical and has a direct impact on competetive play--if I haven't managed, for whatever reason, to be able to get ahold of the new set, it makes sense that I'd be concerned about being surprised by totally new cards and new wording, and 30 days seems like a reasonable amount of time to gain access to new cards, or at least see the spoilers. On the other hand, that someone has cheap and easy access to Dreams of the Sphinx or Call the Great Beast in a new starter deck strikes me as totally irrelevant to game play--one could argue, sure, that it is somehow unfair to be able to buy Dreams or Call in a starter that someone else might not have access to for whatever reason, but this line of argument falls very short for me, as *everyone already has access to Dreams and Call*, and the difference between "I can buy a starter and get a Dreams or a Call for $10.00 easy!" and "I can get a Dreams or Call on e-bay for $20.00, easy!" is not one that is worth quibbling over. Again, there is also the argument of "it is just easier this way" (i.e. ban the whole set for 30 days), which isn't an insignificant argument. But really, the confusion of "Anarch Revolt doesn't use the new wording for a few more weeks..." is no greater than "Anarch Revolt doesn't use the old wording anymore...", for my money, and doesn't really justify totally preventing the use of functionally identical reprints as soon as you get them. Just as a very concrete but minor example, at the NEQ, my pal Steve (that would be Steve "I Bled Someone for 14 in One Turn 'Cause of Stupid Misdirection" Wampler) came to play, but doesn't have a lot of cards, as most of his VTES stuff was stolen out of his car a few years back. He just recently got into the game again, and went to go play at the NEQ with the cards he had. He realized right before the event that he needed various common cards for the deck he wanted to play, went to the dealers room, and picked up a couple KMW starters (the only cards available to buy) so he could get some Swallowed by the Nights or something. He put them in his deck, got to the event, realized that the KMW cards were illegal, and spent a frantic 15 minutes trading around with various people for legal copies of the cards. He lucked out and found folks to swap with, but the whole venture was absurd--it made no sense at all, at least in my mind, that he should have to swap for legal Swalloweds and Behind You's when he had cards to use in his hands already, but they were arbitrarily illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > There is an argumant to be made, certainly, that the current system > is easier--just *all* cards from a given set are illegal for 30 days, > which prevents confusion from new and re-written cards before > everyone has seen them, and this easy system leaves us with > functionally identical reprints getting swept up in the easy fix. I think that "it's easier" is a pretty convincing argument for keeping the current system. It resolves any issue about what "functionally identical" means. This is more complicated than it first appears. Obviously, an identical card is "functionally identical". Is a card that has identical text, but different art work "functionally identical"? Is a card that has different text, but text which follows previous errata "functionally identical"? Is a reprint that contains different punctuation "functionally identical"? Is a reprint that includes redundant clarification text "functionally identical"? Is "Reverend Djoser Jones" "functionally identical" to "Khalil Anvari"? Were the various Investment cards "functionally identical" when they were reprinted with the key word "Investment"? The key word had no effect until other cards (Alan Sovereign) become legal. There is much more scope for argument and confusion if "functionally identical" cards become immediately legal. Judges will need to make more decisions, or WW/LSJ will need to list those cards which are "functionally identical" - either will lead to arguments over the cornercase decisions. I'd rather that the appropriate forums were filled after a new release with comments/arguments/clarifications about the *new* cards in the set - rather than long-term irrelevant arguments over whether reprints are functionally identical or not. If you're worried about reprint legality: don't hold, or compete in, a pre-constructed event 30 days after a release date. Issue solved. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Eric is looking for a line, and as I mentioned earlier, I think the line is > an easy one to draw--functionally identical reprints (cards with the same > name and functionally the same text) should be legal for play as soon as you > get them in your grubby little hands. New cards and cards with new wording > should be illegal for 30 days. > > See, there are two, essentntially exclusive, issues at hand here: > > A) New cards and newly worded cards are confusing and potentially unfair to > people who haven't seen them yet in competetive play. This strikes me as a > perfectly reasonable issue, that is addressed by having new and reworded > cards illegal for 30 days. Makes perfect sense to me. Yes, but then there's the issue of what a "functionally identical reprint" vs. "cards with new wording" is. Of course it's obvious that in KMW, Anarch Revolt and Heart of Darkness have new wording (they got a special little mention). But in the past, there have been several cases when stealth errata occurs or a slight change of wording means that the card works differently now. For example, take a look at the "Updated Reprints" list in the Camarilla Expansion section. Notice that it does not list any of the functional changes to Burst of Sunlight, Cryptic Rider, Eagle's Sight, Charnas the Imp, and Kiss of Ra that occurred in that set and were only discovered later. What would have happened if someone tried playing a reprinted version of one of these cards at a tournament, not knowing that the text was subtly changed? (And unfortunately, not every tournament and player will have access to the Internet and older editions of every card during the tournament). I haven't had a chance to thoroughly examine the KMW set yet to see if there are additional wording changes but someone already posted a question about the new Psychomachia (see a previous thread about Bloodstorm and Psychomachia). See how much confusion that caused? LSJ's gut reaction was to reverse the previous ruling on Psychomachia due to the new text (though he later reinstated it). Think of the chaos this could cause at a standard tournament with a normal judge! Now of course, in an ideal world, White Wolf would be able to inform us of all these nitty-gritty changes. But sometimes slipups aren't caught. Sometimes some other guy in charge of wording or layout drops the ball at the last minute. Sometimes one can't determine all of the corner-case ramifications that might result from clarifying and rewording some card text. Overall LSJ and White Wolf do a great job and to expect such perfection is unrealistic. I don't suppose you recall all of the rampant card text migrations from the SW and FN era? Although most of those changes were good, it does take time to find and digest these modifications. In the 10th Anniversary Edition, there were mistakes to the printing of Hell Hound and Business Pressure which were clarified only later. There were also several card text migrations which weren't announced by LSJ on the newsgroup until December 2nd, 2004. Since the cards were available in Heidelberg before that, it's still a 4-5 day window when people could have been playing with reprinted cards with functionally new text, without knowing that there was a change. So back to the original issue, I wanted to point out that the concern about "reprints with new text" isn't just a small microcosm of all the cards. Just because we are aware that AR and Heart of Darkness were changed doesn't mean that there aren't other changes lurking around the corner. Allowing these cards to be instantly legal is bound to cause a great deal of confusion as a result. Previous sets reveal how many reprinted cards can have subtle new changes. And that is why a 30-day waiting period for both completely new and also reprinted cards (whether we think there is old text or not) is entirely appropriate. - Eric Chiang

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:422d00e6$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz... > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> There is an argumant to be made, certainly, that the current system >> is easier--just *all* cards from a given set are illegal for 30 days, >> which prevents confusion from new and re-written cards before >> everyone has seen them, and this easy system leaves us with >> functionally identical reprints getting swept up in the easy fix. > > I think that "it's easier" is a pretty convincing argument for keeping > the current system. It resolves any issue about what "functionally > identical" means. This is more complicated than it first appears. Hmmm - doesn't seem very complicated to me. Flowchart for determining if "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical': Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. > Obviously, an identical card is "functionally identical". > > Is a card that has identical text, but different art work "functionally > identical"? Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > Is a card that has different text, but text which follows previous > errata "functionally identical"? Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > Is a reprint that contains different punctuation "functionally identical"? Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > Is a reprint that includes redundant clarification text "functionally > identical"? Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > Is "Reverend Djoser Jones" "functionally identical" to "Khalil Anvari"? Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > Were the various Investment cards "functionally identical" when they > were reprinted with the key word "Investment"? The key word had no > effect until other cards (Alan Sovereign) become legal. Do they have the same name? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. > There is much more scope for argument and confusion if "functionally > identical" cards become immediately legal. It doesn't seem that way. The only complexity is a smattering of cards which changed name but were clearly meant to be the same name for no reason understood by man. (E.g. "Spirit's Touch" vs. "The Spirit's Touch".) This issue has already been adjudicated for purposes of NRA with respect to action cards, for purposes of replaying same-named action modifier and reaction cards, and for purposes of existing unique cards (e.g. "Raven" vs. "Camilla Devereaux") so shouldn't be much of additional burden for the other types of cards. I suspect you just didn't catch the thrust of the suggestion. (This, again, is how it's done in Magic - unless they've changed it in the past couple of years.) It REALLY doesn't cause any confusion. Honest. Fred

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110246342....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > New cards and cards with new wording should be illegal for 30 days. >> >> See, there are two, essentntially exclusive, issues at hand here: >> >> A) New cards and newly worded cards are confusing and potentially >> unfair to people who haven't seen them yet in competetive play. New cards are not confusing. "Newly worded cards" - as in, what constitutes a true change to the wording of a reprint card vs. what is just punctuation, spelling, line space etc. is probably resolved by the handy-dandy netrep one day before the prelease, who announces these things. But ultimately, I disagree with Peter in this sense if nothing else. Newly worded reprint cards should be legal. They should just operate under their older text. That is simple and workable and has a history of working in at least one other major CCG. The rest of the your issues are resolved by that. (And, if necessary, by seeing my concomitant response to lehrhuch.) Fred

lehrbuch wrote: > I think that "it's easier" is a pretty convincing argument for keeping > the current system. It resolves any issue about what "functionally > identical" means. This is more complicated than it first appears. > > Obviously, an identical card is "functionally identical". > > Is a card that has identical text, but different art work "functionally > identical"? By defenition, yes. It functions identically. > Is a card that has different text, but text which follows previous > errata "functionally identical"? Yes, as all cards, regardless of their actual wording, work according to previous errata. My Jyhad Wakes that I use in competition all the time, for instance, yet that doesn't 'cause enough confusion to make them illegal. > Is a reprint that contains different punctuation "functionally identical"? Yes. If functions identically. > Is a reprint that includes redundant clarification text "functionally > identical"? Yes. It functions identically. > Is "Reverend Djoser Jones" "functionally identical" to "Khalil Anvari"? No. Different title. Different group number. They do not function identically, as is easily determined, as they are different cards. > Were the various Investment cards "functionally identical" when they > were reprinted with the key word "Investment"? The key word had no > effect until other cards (Alan Sovereign) become legal. Yes. Just like Jyhad Wake is functionally identical to a KMW Wake. > There is much more scope for argument and confusion if "functionally > identical" cards become immediately legal. Judges will need to make > more decisions, or WW/LSJ will need to list those cards which are > "functionally identical" - either will lead to arguments over the > cornercase decisions. I don't think there actually is much more scope for argument and confusion. Cards that work differently (in the KMW case, that would be Anarch Revolt ond Heart of Darkness) don't get their new wording for 30 days in competetive play, just like old copies don't change their wording magically for 30 days. Everything else works like everything else. > I'd rather that the appropriate forums were filled after a new release > with comments/arguments/clarifications about the *new* cards in the set > - rather than long-term irrelevant arguments over whether reprints are > functionally identical or not. I don't think they would be. > If you're worried about reprint legality: don't hold, or compete in, a > pre-constructed event 30 days after a release date. Issue solved. Or, the kind of silly rule could be changed with minimal hassle for anyone. Also issue solved. [ quoted text not captured ]

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes, but then there's the issue of what a "functionally identical > reprint" vs. "cards with new wording" is. Of course it's obvious that > in KMW, Anarch Revolt and Heart of Darkness have new wording (they got > a special little mention). But in the past, there have been several > cases when stealth errata occurs or a slight change of wording means > that the card works differently now. Cards work as previously thought for 30 days, even if some stealth errata gets through. The vast majority of time, however, this wouldn't be an issue--for every one card with inadvertent stealth errata, there is like going to be 25 cards that are exactly the same as previously. > For example, take a look at the "Updated Reprints" list in the > Camarilla Expansion section. Notice that it does not list any of the > functional changes to Burst of Sunlight, Cryptic Rider, Eagle's Sight, > Charnas the Imp, and Kiss of Ra that occurred in that set and were only > discovered later. What would have happened if someone tried playing a > reprinted version of one of these cards at a tournament, not knowing > that the text was subtly changed? (And unfortunately, not every > tournament and player will have access to the Internet and older > editions of every card during the tournament). They would be played as they would have been previous to the expansion. Again, I'm totally in favor of leaving new wordings and new cards out of competetive play for 30 days after a release. I just don't think the small outliers of weirdness justifies totally throwing out the perfectly reasonable use of Blood Dolls, Wakes, and Swallowed by the Nights. And I don't beleive the possible confusion is large enough, or in any way more significant than allowing Jyhad cards in competition already is, to justify the blanket 30 day ban. > I haven't had a chance to thoroughly examine the KMW set yet to see if > there are additional wording changes but someone already posted a > question about the new Psychomachia (see a previous thread about > Bloodstorm and Psychomachia). See how much confusion that caused? LSJ's > gut reaction was to reverse the previous ruling on Psychomachia due to > the new text (though he later reinstated it). Think of the chaos this > could cause at a standard tournament with a normal judge! I don't think it would cause any confusion at all. In any question, for those 30 days, you play all cards as if they work as it was the day before the new relase. Much like you would play Anarch Revolt with the old wording, even though it has new wording. Or you would play a Jyhad Wake with new wording, even though it has old wording. > So back to the original issue, I wanted to point out that the concern > about "reprints with new text" isn't just a small microcosm of all the > cards. Just because we are aware that AR and Heart of Darkness were > changed doesn't mean that there aren't other changes lurking around the > corner. Allowing these cards to be instantly legal is bound to cause a > great deal of confusion as a result. See, I just don't think it would be that big of a deal. But that is me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > New cards are not confusing. "Newly worded cards" - as in, what > constitutes a true change to the wording of a reprint card vs. what > is just punctuation, spelling, line space etc. is probably resolved > by the handy-dandy netrep one day before the prelease, who announces > these things. I meant "new cards are confusing" in the sense that it is confusing to play in a tournament with brand new cards that you have never seen--i.e. if I sit down to play in an event, and my opponents are playing with Red List, Baretta, and Forced March, arguably, that is confusing. 30 days, however, is long enough to either see all the new stuff, or if you can't do that in 30 days, reasonably say "tough". > But ultimately, I disagree with Peter in this sense if nothing else. > Newly worded reprint cards should be legal. They should just > operate under their older text. That is simple and workable and > has a history of working in at least one other major CCG. No, no. We agree here, too. I was just pointing out the two exclusive arguments that seem to fuel the "No new cards at all for 30 days" argument. One strikes me as valid. The other does not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Yes, but then there's the issue of what a "functionally identical > reprint" vs. "cards with new wording" is. Of course it's obvious that > in KMW, Anarch Revolt and Heart of Darkness have new wording (they got > a special little mention). But in the past, there have been several > cases when stealth errata occurs or a slight change of wording means > that the card works differently now. > You mean like the new Hunting Grounds?

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:15:11 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:422d00e6$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz... >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> There is an argumant to be made, certainly, that the current system >>> is easier--just *all* cards from a given set are illegal for 30 days, >>> which prevents confusion from new and re-written cards before >>> everyone has seen them, and this easy system leaves us with >>> functionally identical reprints getting swept up in the easy fix. >> >> I think that "it's easier" is a pretty convincing argument for keeping >> the current system. It resolves any issue about what "functionally >> identical" means. This is more complicated than it first appears. > >Hmmm - doesn't seem very complicated to me. > >Flowchart for determining if "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical': > >Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? >YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. >NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. Umm...anarch revolt? reprint has same name, but is NOT 'functionally identical' in a way that i would interpret that phrase. [ quoted text not captured ]

regarding reprints legal in the first 30 days or not, i am a big fan of minimal paperwork. presumably to know whether a card is a reprint or not, you'll need a complete card list, and or a cabal of older players who know such things. sure, most of us have been playing for 10 years, but what about some new playgroup who's only been playing for 1 or even less? does a card have a new set symbol? yes. then not legal. simplest and easiest. looking to see if it has a new set symbol, and then if it is reprinted, and then finding an old copy or a cardtext list to make sure the new one isn't any different to the old one. this is much less gentle on the time constraints of tourney organisers, especially new ones. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:04:51 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] is that the 'gain 1 blood from hunting grounds' to 'gain blood from 1 hunting ground' change? (a necessary change to make Trophy: Hunting Ground actually give you 2 blood, i beleive.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:17:53 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? >> YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. >> NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. > > Umm...anarch revolt? reprint has same name, but is NOT 'functionally > identical' in a way that i would interpret that phrase. It is. Unless you want to get into "why doesn't card X do what is written on it". Until the set becomes tournament legal, all copies work according to the old printing. When it becomes legal, all copies work according to the new printing. At any point in time they all work the same way. -- Bye, Daneel

> >You mean like the new Hunting Grounds? > > is that the 'gain 1 blood from hunting grounds' to 'gain blood from 1 > hunting ground' change? > (a necessary change to make Trophy: Hunting Ground actually give you 2 > blood, i beleive.) > They could have given T:HG the silly wording of "During your untap phase, this vampire gains 1 blood. He then gains a second blood, ignoring the normal limitation on gaining blood from Hunting Grounds."

[People wrote stuff about which cards should be legal in less than 30 days, and I chose an arbitrary place to jump back into the thread] If it *is* a question of rarity, then what is the difference between the legality of Kindred Most Wanted cards, and the legality of a new print run of Sabbat War after a year of being out of print, for example? Surely this makes the "availability" argument fall flat on its face, since this hypothetical reprint of Sabbat War has suddenly made Direct Intervention or War Ghouls or whatever "more common" than they'd been for the time SW was not being printed. That reprint is no different than a "brand new expansion" with no functional changes to the cards it did reprint; it's irrelevant that it happens to have no brand new cards. And the familiar expansion symbol only makes it impossible to judge whether the card is "30 days old" or not. However, my main point is parallel to the rules per se: Much like I have never seen a judge call someone out for having an "improper mix" of Jyhad vs VTES-backed cards, I would like to remind everyone that this is a game. And the attendees to tournaments, in general, are primarily there to play the game they love and to have fun. So if situations like these arise, regardless of what the letter of the law says, just LET IT GO! Cheating is one thing. But accidentally putting a reprint in your deck, or putting 2 Jyhad-backed cards in your library, or bringing a vampire out in the middle of your influence phase before you're done transferring.. come on, people, these are not worth punishing for. There is no need for nitpicky anal-retentive judges who are going to disqualify someone who made an innocent mistake. My primary goal as a tournament judge is to make sure that everyone is able and allowed to play and have fun... if speedbumps come along, you do your best to resolve them, but you can't turn someone away from a tournament just because they have a Govern the Unaligned that was released 29 days ago. Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston FUN FIRST! RULES SECOND!

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbfdf...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] "Functionally Identical" invokes function explicitly. If the two cards function differently, then they are not functionally identical, by definition. The new card does not "function" as the old card for the first 30 days. This "implication" seems to have trapped you into thinking that this sort of absurdity would be easier than "wait 30 days". The equivalence relation you seem to be describing has nothing to do with "functionally". You're thinking of "have the same name (at a fundamental level, for things like Luccia and Anastaz)". -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

-- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:395lsmF...@individual.net... > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbfdf...@news.chello.hu... > > On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:17:53 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? > > >> YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. > > >> NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. > > > > > > Umm...anarch revolt? reprint has same name, but is NOT 'functionally > > > identical' in a way that i would interpret that phrase. > > > > It is. Unless you want to get into "why doesn't card X do what is > > written on it". Until the set becomes tournament legal, all copies > > work according to the old printing. When it becomes legal, all > > copies work according to the new printing. At any point in time > > they all work the same way. > > > "Functionally Identical" invokes function explicitly. If the two cards > function differently, then they are not functionally identical, by > definition. > > The new card does not "function" as the old card for the first 30 > days. This "implication" seems to have trapped you into thinking "Simplification", that is (spelt wrong first time -- spell-checker "fixed" it the wrong way while I was distracted.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:395m6cF...@individual.net... > > "Simplification", that is (spelt wrong first time -- spell-checker > "fixed" it the wrong way while I was distracted.) > Look! A Monkey!!!! DaveZ Atom Weaver ...has the Brain

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:02:12 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It is. Unless you want to get into "why doesn't card X do what is >> written on it". Until the set becomes tournament legal, all copies >> work according to the old printing. When it becomes legal, all >> copies work according to the new printing. At any point in time >> they all work the same way. > > "Functionally Identical" invokes function explicitly. If the two cards > function differently, then they are not functionally identical, by > definition. > > The new card does not "function" as the old card for the first 30 > days. This "implication" seems to have trapped you into thinking > that this sort of absurdity would be easier than "wait 30 days". > > The equivalence relation you seem to be describing has nothing to > do with "functionally". You're thinking of "have the same name (at > a fundamental level, for things like Luccia and Anastaz)". ??? Are you saying that the new Anarch Revolt cards in my deck function differently than the old copies? -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbl4g...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] No, clearly. It's this sort of twisting that paints your case as weak (whether it is or not). When the new ones are legal, the functions of the old ones will change to match, by the "play by most recent printing" rule. (note: the function of the old ones changes, since the new copy is functionally different. If it were not functionally different, then the old copies' function wouldn't be affected). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:40:00 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsnbl4g...@news.chello.hu... >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:02:12 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > The new card does not "function" as the old card for the first 30 >> > days. This "implication" seems to have trapped you into thinking >> > that this sort of absurdity would be easier than "wait 30 days". >> > >> > The equivalence relation you seem to be describing has nothing to >> > do with "functionally". You're thinking of "have the same name (at >> > a fundamental level, for things like Luccia and Anastaz)". >> >> ??? >> >> Are you saying that the new Anarch Revolt cards in my deck function >> differently than the old copies? > > No, clearly. It's this sort of twisting that paints your case as > weak (whether it is or not). If the VTESrep rules so, it must be the case. ;) Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text exists. This seems quite logical. *Not that it would really matter in non-tournament play. But I still assume that 1) the two cards will be played in the same way, and 2) most groups will stick to the deadline of "tournament legality" in changing rules / card texts. > When the new ones are legal, the functions of the old ones will > change to match, by the "play by most recent printing" rule. Indeed. That is quite what I was referring to. > (note: the function of the old ones changes, since the new copy is > functionally different. If it were not functionally different, then > the old copies' function wouldn't be affected). And? Function being the way cards are used, a card can be functionally different from its own text even if there is no reprint of it. Like, Return to Innocence is functionally different from its own text, as it was errataed, but wasn't reprinted. If the card recieves new errata, its functionality changes again. Likewise, until that new errata comes into power, the old errata is in effect. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:40:00 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: | |> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message |> news:opsnbl4g...@news.chello.hu... |> |>> Are you saying that the new Anarch Revolt cards in my deck function |>> differently than the old copies? |> |> No, clearly. It's this sort of twisting that paints your case as |> weak (whether it is or not). | | If the VTESrep rules so, it must be the case. ;) Yes, Daneel, it actually is the case. Most of us are intelligent; some of us are EXTREMELY so. All of us have been around the block a few times, and have learned to recognize this sort of yammering as "Things someone starts to do when he doesn't have any ground to stand on, but wants to argue anyway because he's a whiny bitch." Being deliberately obtuse doesn't help advance your case, nor does it impress anyone. It just confirms what we knew for a long time (as I note you're spending time conducting this sort of semantic dodging in other threads as well), which is that you JUST DON'T GET IT. Honestly, I recommend a more solitary hobby, like crocheting. | Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards | from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch | Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an | "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text | exists. This seems quite logical. Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because they've bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the new card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is _NEW_ text. So they go to a tournament, and their cards are legal but their deck functions totally differently than they thought it would. Is that a good plan? Of course it isn't. The 30-day rule exists for a number of good reasons. Many people have pointed those out; none of them have been refuted YET. The most overriding is this: It's a Collectible Card Game. Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. No shit, really... I'll repeat it for those of you who are slow. Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. If you Didn't Collect the Cards, You Can't Make the Deck You Want. The 30-day rule allows everyone an equal "head start" with regards to distribution, etc., and helps ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to purchase/acquire the new cards before the cards themselves become legal. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLbEZtQZlu3o7QpERAjdPAJ9uTzn6g6raMbYD3DQnj3MmLZBV8ACdEMSu bXwxZoZCEYf6DjuPU2xdGEw= =p5EO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbnfa...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:40:00 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > > news:opsnbl4g...@news.chello.hu... > >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:02:12 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> > The new card does not "function" as the old card for the first 30 > >> > days. This "implication" seems to have trapped you into thinking > >> > that this sort of absurdity would be easier than "wait 30 days". > >> > > >> > The equivalence relation you seem to be describing has nothing to > >> > do with "functionally". You're thinking of "have the same name (at > >> > a fundamental level, for things like Luccia and Anastaz)". > >> > >> ??? > >> > >> Are you saying that the new Anarch Revolt cards in my deck function > >> differently than the old copies? > > > > No, clearly. It's this sort of twisting that paints your case as > > weak (whether it is or not). > > If the VTESrep rules so, it must be the case. ;) > > Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards > from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch > Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an > "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text > exists. This seems quite logical. No more so than the current. In fact, having the new copy - the one with the most recent card text - not do what it says is quite a bit less "logical" than the current. > > When the new ones are legal, the functions of the old ones will > > change to match, by the "play by most recent printing" rule. > > Indeed. That is quite what I was referring to. And yet you call it a non-functional change. > > (note: the function of the old ones changes, since the new copy is > > functionally different. If it were not functionally different, then > > the old copies' function wouldn't be affected). > > And? Function being the way cards are used, a card can be functionally > different from its own text even if there is no reprint of it. Like, > Return to Innocence is functionally different from its own text, as > it was errataed, but wasn't reprinted. If the card recieves new errata, > its functionality changes again. Likewise, until that new errata comes > into power, the old errata is in effect. And? That there are other ways for a card's function to change doesn't mean that this way (printing a functionally different version) is not one. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Which rule? The rule of not playing with new cards until 30 days later? If >> you're ok with that, the rest follows. (See my previous argument.) >> >> If not, see earlier posts in this thread about possibly abusing "special" >> access to the cards prior to what's a reasonable time to expect those who >> play to get cards. > > Sorry, Ankur. My newsreading service is usually pretty good but I just > can't find any previous post you'd made in this thread. I'll address the > things I've seen people (possibly you) say about this. I hadn't made any previous posts. I was referring to others' arguments. > I agree that unequal access to new cards is probably a good reason for > the 30 day rule in general. Where reprints are concerned, however, the > rule is just more problem than it's worth. This is a judgement thing > and I'll freely admit this is just my opinion. But: I think it's possible for a player not to realize that a card is a reprint. Or that the text of a reprinted card is notably different from the old text that it is in effect a new card. What's the simplest and most universal way then to incorporate the "generally good reason" for the 30 day rule for new cards? That's right -- all cards are restricted for 30 days. > 1) I don't see the point of worrying about someone's access to a KMW > Dreams of the Sphinx when there are already legal copies of Dreams of > the Sphinx in circulation. If you want to point to one person's > superior ability to get a new KMW Dreams of the Sphinx over someone > else, I will point backwards at some players who have been playing > longer having likewise a superior ability to get old Dreams of the > Sphinx in comparison to newer players. I just don't care about this. My point isn't about accessibility, though since I sent you gallavanting off onto other people's posts, I can't really blame you for that. :) > It's a good rule for new cards. Plus, there's several other good > reasons to apply it to new cards such as giving players and judges the > chance to learn about new cards and giving LSJ the chance to rule on and > make known his rulings on new cards that have new abilities and affect > the game in hitherto unknown ways. But it's not worth bothering with > for reprints. I'm not sure that the judging concerns are that meaningful. Theoretically speaking, you'll still have a number of rules clarifications for the first few tournaments after a set has been released. > 2) It causes confusion. People see that a card's a reprint, they expect > it to be legal to play because it already _is_ legal to play in other > forms. What happened at the NE Regional Qualifier is a classic example. What may also cause confusion is the converse -- players not knowing what is and isn't a reprint. I've got a group with lots of new players, and it would be a *nightmare* to tell them which cards were and weren't legal from the set. And even if you did, you might have other problems based on how similar the cards sound. Suppose for instance that there was a new card called "Spectral Intervention". That's really close to "Spectral Divination" and "Spiritual Intervention" (two names that many players mix up). Now you'd have the issue of "but I thought it was legal and I put in 437 copies into my deck and now what do I do cause I can't play anymore". Gosh, I'd hate to be the guy to have to remind/clarify to a (relatively) newer player which cards to include. Ultimately, allowing reprints favors those who have been playing long enough to know what the reprints are. Not allowing them favors the other group. My two points are this: 1) the simple universal approach for the "generally good reason" is consistent and does the job, and 2) players who know what are/aren't reprints can be expected to care more about such things as deck construction in general. > Of course, people should know the deck construction rules and I'm not > making excuses. But every nuance you throw into the deck construction > rules is one more detail people will tend to forget occasionally and > when they do, it causes problems. So if it's not a necessary nuance - > get rid of it for the common good. I don't feel this is a necessary > nuance. Apply this very same logic to a different demographic of people, and you'll see a whole host of considerations which support the counter-argument. Except that *that* demographic has more of an excuse to not know deck construction rules than others. Ankur

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > I don't suppose you recall all of the rampant card text migrations from > the SW and FN era? Although most of those changes were good, it does > take time to find and digest these modifications. In the 10th > Anniversary Edition, there were mistakes to the printing of Hell Hound > and Business Pressure which were clarified only later. There were also > several card text migrations which weren't announced by LSJ on the > newsgroup until December 2nd, 2004. Since the cards were available in > Heidelberg before that, it's still a 4-5 day window when people could > have been playing with reprinted cards with functionally new text, > without knowing that there was a change. Don't forget about Brachah's misprint in the Camarilla Edition or Imogen in Black Hand. I believe it was a day or two before these misprints were clarified as such. Had they been tournament-legal during that period, a judge would've had to make a call whether they were misprints or text migrations. How is a judge supposed to determine that? Matt Morgan

Ok, a slightly off-topic question: Peter, do you and Fred do anything else? Like ever? I mean jeez, you guys post a whole freaking lot. And they're like 45 page discussions with point-counterpoint and legalese and lo mein. Hey, could either one of you write my dissertation? I need to add about 653 pages. ;) Ankur

> Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards > from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch > Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an > "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text > exists. This seems quite logical. > > *Not that it would really matter in non-tournament play. But I still > assume that 1) the two cards will be played in the same way, and 2) > most groups will stick to the deadline of "tournament legality" in > changing rules / card texts. > I disagree. Unless there's a tournament coming up, you're much better off playing under the new rules with the new cards. The old rules and card list will only be in effect for at most 29 days, the new cards and rules will be in effect forever. Forever >> 29 days.

Ankur wrote: >Peter, do you and Fred do anything else? Like ever? I can't speak for Fred (who, really, writes me into a hole, and regularly defeats me through fatigue), but heck, I only posted, like, 3 times on this thread yesterday, and the posts weren't even that long. >I mean jeez, you guys post a whole freaking lot. And they're like 45 page >discussions with point-counterpoint and legalese and lo mein. I don't know what posts of mine your reading--I don't post *that* much. Ok, well, I do, but it usually isn't that long. >Hey, could either one of you write my dissertation? I need to add about >653 pages. ;) Hey--I already got my MA. I'm done with that crap. -Peter

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005030809...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... > > Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards > > from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch > > Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an > > "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text > > exists. This seems quite logical. > > > > *Not that it would really matter in non-tournament play. But I still > > assume that 1) the two cards will be played in the same way, and 2) > > most groups will stick to the deadline of "tournament legality" in > > changing rules / card texts. > > > > I disagree. Unless there's a tournament coming up, you're much better off > playing under the new rules with the new cards. The old rules and card > list will only be in effect for at most 29 days, the new cards and rules > will be in effect forever. Forever >> 29 days. Indeed. As with new errata (from RTRs), the window also serves as a get-acquainted period between the players and the new stuff (and active use can uncover questions and misconceptions before a tournament rather than during). -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

David Zopf wrote: > Look! A Monkey!!!! An evil monkey! In my closet! -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Daneel wrote: > Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament > environment. The cards from the new set are not yet > tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch Revolt follow > the old text and functionality, as the card is still an > "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the > official text exists. This seems quite logical. Unless you have new players that are unfortunately either: a) not well-versed in tournament rules b) not well-versed in what cards are new and what cards are old c) sadly ignorant of the internet in general > *Not that it would really matter in non-tournament play. > But I still assume that > 1) the two cards will be played in the same way, and > 2) most groups will stick to the deadline of "tournament > legality" in changing rules / card texts. My group changes to the new card texts in casual play immediately, so that we can get used to the new versions. I imagine that there are other groups that do this too. Xian

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1tuq21dj63upgn989...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:15:11 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >> >>"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:422d00e6$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz... >>> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>>> There is an argumant to be made, certainly, that the current system >>>> is easier--just *all* cards from a given set are illegal for 30 days, >>>> which prevents confusion from new and re-written cards before >>>> everyone has seen them, and this easy system leaves us with >>>> functionally identical reprints getting swept up in the easy fix. >>> >>> I think that "it's easier" is a pretty convincing argument for keeping >>> the current system. It resolves any issue about what "functionally >>> identical" means. This is more complicated than it first appears. >> >>Hmmm - doesn't seem very complicated to me. >> >>Flowchart for determining if "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical': >> >>Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? >>YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. >>NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. > > Umm...anarch revolt? reprint has same name, but is NOT 'functionally > identical' in a way that i would interpret that phrase. You must have missed the point: it doesn't matter what the text says. You use the old text until March 23rd and the new text after March 23rd. Why is everyone so obsessed with figuring out some anal-retentive definition for "functionally identical" by considering card text?!? My point is: it doesn't matter. A card is a reprint if it has the same name as an existing card. Otherwise, it's a new card. How simple is that?!? Fred

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:93vq211q7924eje27...@4ax.com... > does a card have a new set symbol? yes. then not legal. simplest and > easiest. I don't agree: that's why the whole issue came up. Certain people at the NE Regional Qualifier apparently did not come to that conclusion, even though that rule exists and they could have found it had they known the deck construction rules about new expansions at all. My conclusion is that people tend to think you don't have to wait 30 days to play a reprint card unless they're specifically told otherwise. I suspect that's true because the rule doesn't make much sense to the average player. I get the idea that the alternative - allowing reprints from new expansions - is being made *FAR* *FAR* more complicated in peoples' heads than it is. It's really very simple: does a card already exist with name X? If so, then using new expansion cards with name X is legal immediately. How is this hard to figure out or remember? Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:DXlXd.5116$Ru.3152@okepread06... > "salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1tuq21dj63upgn989...@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:15:11 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > >>Flowchart for determining if "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical': > >> > >>Qusetion 1: Do "Card X" and "Card Y" have the same name? > >>YES: "Card X" and "Card Y" are 'functionally identical'. Done. > >>NO: "Card X" and "Card Y" are NOT 'functionally identical'. Done. > > > > Umm...anarch revolt? reprint has same name, but is NOT 'functionally > > identical' in a way that i would interpret that phrase. > > You must have missed the point: it doesn't matter what the text says. > You use the old text until March 23rd and the new text after March 23rd. > > Why is everyone so obsessed with figuring out some anal-retentive definition > for "functionally identical" by considering card text?!? My point is: it > doesn't matter. A card is a reprint if it has the same name as an existing > card. Otherwise, it's a new card. How simple is that?!? Which point is being missed, again? Everyone knows what a reprint is (and it doesn't necessarily involve an identical name -- see Anastaz). The current topic of conversation is the handling of reprinted cards whose functionality has changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > Ok, a slightly off-topic question: > > Peter, do you and Fred do anything else? Like ever? Three words: arguing is fun. Well, as long is it doesn't personal and snarky and all that. Most fun of all when someone points out a new way of looking at an issue I'd never seen before - but you often have to poke at their arguments to find how that's true. Fred poster boy for posting too much

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:R5mXd.5117$Ru.1811@okepread06... > "salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:93vq211q7924eje27...@4ax.com... > > does a card have a new set symbol? yes. then not legal. simplest and > > easiest. > > I don't agree: that's why the whole issue came up. Certain people > at the NE Regional Qualifier apparently did not come to that conclusion, It's not a matter of conclusions, it's simply the rule. Salem's statement of the rule is correct, except for advance-release promo cards (when such promo cards have the expansion symbol). The manner in which players overlook or misundertand any given rule doesn't change the rule. As far as the rule goes, it is simple and easy. Some players may get tripped up by it, but certainly no more than would be tripped up (in different ways) by adding an odd exception to the "most-recent printing" rule, for example. > even though that rule exists and they could have found it had they known > the deck construction rules about new expansions at all. My conclusion > is that people tend to think you don't have to wait 30 days to play > a reprint card unless they're specifically told otherwise. I suspect > that's true because the rule doesn't make much sense to the average > player. I tend to think that the average player would have more trouble with the varying application of the most-recent printing rule than they do with this rule. > I get the idea that the alternative - allowing reprints from new > expansions - is being made *FAR* *FAR* more complicated in peoples' > heads than it is. I get the idea that the current rule -- wait 30 days -- is being made *FAR* *FAR* more complicated in peoples' heads than it is. > It's really very simple: does a card already exist > with name X? If so, then using new expansion cards with name X is > legal immediately. How is this hard to figure out or remember? Given functionality changes (and name changes, to a much lesser degree), it is at least as hard as figuring out what 30 days from February 21 is (given the simplicity of the latter). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >> I agree that unequal access to new cards is probably a good reason for >> the 30 day rule in general. Where reprints are concerned, however, the >> rule is just more problem than it's worth. This is a judgement thing >> and I'll freely admit this is just my opinion. But: > > I think it's possible for a player not to realize that a card is a > reprint. On some level, players have to understand there's a 30 day limitation for new cards. If a player doesn't understand THAT, he'll only create a legal deck by chance. If a player does know about the rule, this isn't a problem. It's a very simple rule to follow: if you know that a card of the same name already exists, you can use it. If not, you'd better not - or go check with someone else who knows about past printings. It doesn't matter. It's not a very hard rule to follow either way. > Or that the text of a reprinted card is notably different from > the old text that it is in effect a new card. They may not know that the text of an old card has been errated, either. Or that it's been changed by a more recent printing. The problem of ignorance about what the functional text of a given card is already exists. And this situation really isn't the worst one by far: to play the card, a player has to at least know that former version of it existed. He should go a little further and make sure that he knows what those versions did - which is what he should do for all the cards he uses anyway. >> 2) It causes confusion. People see that a card's a reprint, they expect >> it to be legal to play because it already _is_ legal to play in other >> forms. What happened at the NE Regional Qualifier is a classic example. > > What may also cause confusion is the converse -- players not knowing what > is and isn't a reprint. I've got a group with lots of new players, and it > would be a *nightmare* to tell them which cards were and weren't legal > from the set. See above. I have no idea what's nightmarish about it. It's pretty simple. > And even if you did, you might have other problems based on > how similar the cards sound. Suppose for instance that there was a new > card called "Spectral Intervention". That's really close to "Spectral > Divination" and "Spiritual Intervention" (two names that many players mix > up). This seems overstated to me. If you stop and think about new players considering using a reprint card, it shouldn't be hard to figure out if it's legal or not and get it right. In most expansions (things like Camarilla Edition aside), they should know they can't use anything from the booster packs. The only things they can use are from precons and then only after checking to see if a card is a reprint. Probably they'd want to know from what previous edition and if the card text was the same. If they're considering using a new card they have no knowledge because they suspect it might be a reprint, they know they have to investiage its legality anyway so they should be alert enough to do it right. If they HAVE knowledge of the existing card in previous editions, then they know they have the right one and they know what it does - including if the new wording has changes. I just can't imagine how this could cause problems. It never seemed to in Magic. > Ultimately, allowing reprints favors those who have been playing long > enough to know what the reprints are. If you don't know what the reprints are, you don't know about the card anyway, so I fail to see the issue. I think the knowledge issue tends to favor older players anyway - for much better reasons than that they're aware they can use a new expansion reprint card right away. So I'm going to wave my hand over this issue. ("Go away,...go away!" :-) ) I don't think it's much. > My two points are this: 1) the simple universal approach for the > "generally good reason" is consistent and does the job, and 2) players who > know what are/aren't reprints can be expected to care more about such > things as deck construction in general. OK, I don't understand this. So I can't respond. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:39694sF...@individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:DXlXd.5116$Ru.3152@okepread06... >> Why is everyone so obsessed with figuring out some anal-retentive definition >> for "functionally identical" by considering card text?!? My point is: it >> doesn't matter. A card is a reprint if it has the same name as an existing >> card. Otherwise, it's a new card. How simple is that?!? > > Which point is being missed, again? > > Everyone knows what a reprint is (and it doesn't necessarily involve > an identical name -- see Anastaz). Sure. But it's already been pretty much set down in existing rules for other reasons. No new ground need be tread, here. > The current topic of conversation is the handling of reprinted cards whose > functionality has changed. You mean, should they be made legal for tournaments? (Non-tournament play doesn't strike me as an important issue. Play them however your group prefers, as long as everyone's on the same page.) That also doesn't strike me as a difficult subject: before 30 days, as they were worded before. After 30 days, under the new text. Again, this is being made out to be far more complex than it needs to be, AFAICS. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:qMmXd.5122$Ru.2692@okepread06... > Again, this is being made out to be far more complex than it needs to be, > AFAICS. Yes, indeed. It doesn't get much simpler than "wait 30 days". [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The manner in which players overlook or misundertand any given rule > doesn't change the rule. I not sure who suggested it did. However, it might suggest that a change to such a rule would be more convenient for all concerned. > I get the idea that the current rule -- wait 30 days -- is being > made *FAR* *FAR* more complicated in peoples' heads than it is. Again, no one suggested it was terrible complicated - only that ignornant players tend to be surprised by it and it doesn't seem like a necessary wrinkle. >> It's really very simple: does a card already exist >> with name X? If so, then using new expansion cards with name X is >> legal immediately. How is this hard to figure out or remember? > > Given functionality changes (and name changes, to a much lesser degree), > it is at least as hard as figuring out what 30 days from February 21 is > (given the simplicity of the latter). Hmmm. Strange comparison. I don't know whether it is or not but either way calculating days is a necessary wrinkle in the deck construction rules vis-a-vis new sets. Banning reprints is not. Fred

> You must have missed the point: it doesn't matter what the text says. > You use the old text until March 23rd and the new text after March 23rd. > So we should be playing Keminitri (Adv) as Keminitri until the 21st?

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005030814...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... >> You must have missed the point: it doesn't matter what the text says. >> You use the old text until March 23rd and the new text after March 23rd. > > So we should be playing Keminitri (Adv) as Keminitri until the 21st? Oh, for fuck's sake....

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:05:13 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: Wow, nice to see an olt timer. Haven't posted too much lately. What's up, old fart? > |> No, clearly. It's this sort of twisting that paints your case as > |> weak (whether it is or not). > | > | If the VTESrep rules so, it must be the case. ;) > > Yes, Daneel, it actually is the case. Most of us are intelligent; some > of us are EXTREMELY so. All of us have been around the block a few You forgot humble. And handsome. ;) > times, and have learned to recognize this sort of yammering as "Things > someone starts to do when he doesn't have any ground to stand on, but > wants to argue anyway because he's a whiny bitch." Or maybe I just have something to say? Hard to tell without reading, ain't it? > Being deliberately obtuse doesn't help advance your case, nor does it > impress anyone. It just confirms what we knew for a long time (as I > note you're spending time conducting this sort of semantic dodging in > other threads as well), which is that you JUST DON'T GET IT. I find it hard to believe that you of all people would try to lecture me in manners or arguing. Rather entertaining twist of events, but the credibility part is seriously lacking. > Honestly, I recommend a more solitary hobby, like crocheting. Did the inspiration to contribute this particular piece of advice have to do anything with the fact that you can't (and never could) come up with any real arguments? You know, it is easier to call names and be offensive than to actually think and reason. Of course, you being all intelligent, it shouldn't be hard, should it? ;) > | Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards > | from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch > | Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an > | "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text > | exists. This seems quite logical. > > Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because they've > bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local > playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the new > card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is _NEW_ > text. Most common example. We are talking about a new player who started to play within 1 month of a new set coming out AND wants to integrate into the local playgroup BUT knows nothing about any previoius sets. > So they go to a tournament, and their cards are legal but their deck > functions totally differently than they thought it would. Is that a > good plan? Of course it isn't. ... AND they go to a tournament? Please? With new KMW cards? Are you sure their biggest problem will be how reprints work? Given, how, um, they can't buy a starter or a booster without getting NEW (that is, tournament illegal) cards? You know, you're lucky your train of thought did not carry any passangers. They would not be alive by now after such a derail. > The 30-day rule exists for a number of good reasons. Many people have > pointed those out; none of them have been refuted YET. The most > overriding is this: Selective reading is a skill most people excercise more or less. Admittedly, you are a master of said skill. > It's a Collectible Card Game. > Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. > > No shit, really... I'll repeat it for those of you who are slow. > > Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. > If you Didn't Collect the Cards, You Can't Make the Deck You Want. Aside of the stench that protrudes from your tone, you finally made a point. Or at least, you wrote something that can be loosely put into the "opinion or fact" hat. Almost borders on meaningful contribution. > The 30-day rule allows everyone an equal "head start" with regards to > distribution, etc., and helps ensure that everyone has the same > opportunity to purchase/acquire the new cards before the cards > themselves become legal. Congratulations. You've successfully repeated something I wrote down about a week ago. In that sense, try reading back; in my first post regarding this matter I listed some pros and cons. This was one of the pros of the current system. ... this felt real good. I missed you, Derek. Most people aren't this offensive, so I have trouble being offensive towards them. But you are different... All this anger, all this hate in one man. That is really admirable. Keep it up! ;) -- Bye, Daneel

> This seems overstated to me. If you stop and think about new players > considering using a reprint card, it shouldn't be hard to figure out if > it's legal or not and get it right. In most expansions (things like > Camarilla Edition aside), they should know they can't use anything from > the booster packs. The only things they can use are from precons and > then only after checking to see if a card is a reprint. Probably they'd > want to know from what previous edition and if the card text was the same. > If they're considering using a new card they have no knowledge because they > suspect it might be a reprint, they know they have to investiage its > legality anyway so they should be alert enough to do it right. If they > HAVE knowledge of the existing card in previous editions, then they know > they have the right one and they know what it does - including if the new > wording has changes. > Thankyou for displaying the relatively absurd complexity of allowing reprints.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:ITmXd.5123$Ru.2329@okepread06... > I not sure who suggested it did. However, it might suggest that a > change to such a rule would be more convenient for all concerned. If it suggests that "wait 30 days" is too complicated, replacing "wait 30 days" with a no-less-complicated rule regarding a 30-day reverse application of the most-recent printing rule is clearly not the solution. > > I get the idea that the current rule -- wait 30 days -- is being > > made *FAR* *FAR* more complicated in peoples' heads than it is. > > Again, no one suggested it was terrible complicated - only that > ignornant players tend to be surprised by it and it doesn't seem > like a necessary wrinkle. Ignorant players may be surprised by many things, including an unnecessary wrinkle like an exception to the most-recent printing rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> I disagree. Unless there's a tournament coming up, you're much better >> off >> playing under the new rules with the new cards. The old rules and card >> list will only be in effect for at most 29 days, the new cards and rules >> will be in effect forever. Forever >> 29 days. > > Indeed. As with new errata (from RTRs), the window also serves as a > get-acquainted period between the players and the new stuff (and > active use can uncover questions and misconceptions before a tournament > rather than during). I realized that you assume new rules to take effect immediately in casual play upon the release of a new set. This may be a problem if a tournament is held between the release date and the tournament legality date. Anyway, your point is valid for the new cards and new texts. Would it be possible (and worthwhile) in your opinion to release a list of functionally altered cards when a new set comes out? Like how it was for KMW. This way people know that with the exception of those altered cards, reprints can normally be used on tournaments. It is highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone uses a KMW Blood Doll instead of a Blood Doll from an earlier set. It is one of those things that do not add to the pleasure of playing. I'm generally in favor of keeping rules (you need to do is some way, after all), and I see points for the current system, but the impacts seem rather malevolent to me. -- Bye, Daneel

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> I not sure who suggested it did. However, it might suggest that a >> change to such a rule would be more convenient for all concerned. > > If it suggests that "wait 30 days" is too complicated, replacing > "wait 30 days" with a no-less-complicated rule regarding a 30-day > reverse application of the most-recent printing rule is clearly > not the solution. I didn't say it was matter of complexity, exactly. My issue with complexity is that people HERE who are trying to understand how a reprints-allowed rule might work are turning it into a far more complex change than it is. By several orders of magnitude. I'm just pointing out that a lot of players seem to intuitively expect that reprints in new sets ought be legal immediately. Whether that's more complicated or less complicated than the real rule doesn't strike me as relevant. Either way, I assert it would be more convenient to allow. Fred

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnb3j0...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> I disagree. Unless there's a tournament coming up, you're much better > >> off > >> playing under the new rules with the new cards. The old rules and card > >> list will only be in effect for at most 29 days, the new cards and rules > >> will be in effect forever. Forever >> 29 days. > > > > Indeed. As with new errata (from RTRs), the window also serves as a > > get-acquainted period between the players and the new stuff (and > > active use can uncover questions and misconceptions before a tournament > > rather than during). > > I realized that you assume new rules to take effect immediately in casual > play upon the release of a new set. I make no assumptions on casual play - players are free to play as they like in unsanctioned formats. > This may be a problem if a tournament > is held between the release date and the tournament legality date. Anyway, > your point is valid for the new cards and new texts. ? Allowing players to play as they like in unsanctioned formats poses no fundamental problem in approaching sanctioned play. A player who plays with 4CL or with vote pushing or with equipment cards played face down until the equip action is successful in his casual games may be caught off-guard if he doesn't know the rules for sanctioned play prior to joining sanctioned play, sure. But that's not a problem of non-official play per se, but one of knowledge -- the player is expected to know (and abide by) the official rules when participating in a sanctioned event. > Would it be possible (and worthwhile) in your opinion to release a list of > functionally altered cards when a new set comes out? Like how it was for > KMW. This way people know that with the exception of those altered cards, > reprints can normally be used on tournaments. Would it be possible to do what I did for KMW? Um, yes? Doing this doesn't make an exception to the 30-day rule, however. > It is highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone uses a KMW Blood Doll > instead of a Blood Doll from an earlier set. It is one of those things Or highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone is allowed to use a KMW Blood Doll but not a KMW Heart of Darkness. > that > do not add to the pleasure of playing. I'm generally in favor of keeping > rules (you need to do is some way, after all), and I see points for the > current system, but the impacts seem rather malevolent to me. OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > lehrbuch wrote: >> Is a card that has identical text, but different art work "functionally >> identical"? > > By defenition, yes. It functions identically. Not really. What the cards look like is an important component of their function, in play. I wouldn't imagine that I was unique in identifying cross-table cards-in-play by their artwork. >> Is a reprint that contains different punctuation >> "functionally identical"? > > Yes. If functions identically. You can't dodge that so easily. You'll need a crack team of linguists / rules-lawyers on hand at your event (or WW will need them on staff) to determine if the punctuation does change the function of the card or not. >> Is a reprint that includes redundant clarification text >> "functionally identical"? > > Yes. It functions identically. Again, you'll need a crack team of rules-lawyers to determine whether the clarification text is redundant or not. >> Is "Reverend Djoser Jones" "functionally identical" to "Khalil Anvari"? > > No. Different title. Different group number. They do not function > identically, as is easily determined, as they are different cards. There is a difference between *being* identical and *functionally* identical. Nothing (yet) targets group number, during play. Cards with different group numbers are "functionally identical" in play. If I'm proposing to put card X in a crypt that is composed otherwise of group 3 vampires, then "Reverend Djoser Jones" (group 4) and "Khalil Anvari" (group 2) *are* "functionally identical" as card X. > Cards that work differently (in the KMW case, that would be Anarch Revolt > ond Heart of Darkness) don't get their new wording for 30 days in > competetive play, just like old copies don't change their wording > magically for 30 days. So, does that mean you want KMW Anarch Revolts (for example) to be legal with the old text for 30 days - how are you going to explain that to someone who only has KMW cards? -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

> If they were tournament legal, the presumption is that new wordings and > text migrations aren't legal till 30 days pass. If in that situation, > someone was using misprinted Bracah, or whatever, the judge doesn't need to > determine anything. When the difference is noticed, the judge just says > "play her as she was previously. 30 days haven't passed yet". No problem at > all. > What if "When the difference is noticed" is during the Final? Or after the tournament? Or how about after she plays one nasty combo but before she plays another with a different superior discipline?

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Had they been tournament-legal during that period, a > judge would've had to make a call whether they were misprints or text > migrations. How is a judge supposed to determine that? If they were tournament legal, the presumption is that new wordings and text migrations aren't legal till 30 days pass. If in that situation, someone was using misprinted Bracah, or whatever, the judge doesn't need to determine anything. When the difference is noticed, the judge just says "play her as she was previously. 30 days haven't passed yet". No problem at all. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:422e0c00$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > lehrbuch wrote: > >> Is "Reverend Djoser Jones" "functionally identical" to "Khalil Anvari"? > > > > No. Different title. Different group number. They do not function > > identically, as is easily determined, as they are different cards. > > There is a difference between *being* identical and *functionally* > identical. > > Nothing (yet) targets group number, during play. Cards with different > group numbers are "functionally identical" in play. If I'm proposing to > put card X in a crypt that is composed otherwise of group 3 vampires, > then "Reverend Djoser Jones" (group 4) and "Khalil Anvari" (group 2) > *are* "functionally identical" as card X. No. Khalil will contest another Khalil, for example. The Reverend will not contest a Khalil in play. Different unique cards are functionally different, if only in contesting (but also with regards to The Name Forgotten, etc.) Similarly, Meat Cleaver is functionally different from Bastard Sword in the post-Freak Drive case of euipping of one or the other. For cards to be functionally the same, they must be the same card. That is a necessary condition (if only by Monocle -- do you have X in your hand?). The same card can be functionally different from one printing to the next (or after errata or what have you), but different cards can not be wholly functionally identical. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure we should have such a mechanism specifically for misprints. Misprints should be rare (basically non-existant). -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:59:50 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Would it be possible (and worthwhile) in your opinion to release a list >> of >> functionally altered cards when a new set comes out? Like how it was >> for >> KMW. This way people know that with the exception of those altered >> cards, >> reprints can normally be used on tournaments. > > Would it be possible to do what I did for KMW? > Um, yes? Cool! *cool* > Doing this doesn't make an exception to the 30-day rule, however. In itself, no. But in my sinister plan, it is but the first step. ;) >> It is highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone uses a KMW Blood Doll >> instead of a Blood Doll from an earlier set. It is one of those things > > Or highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone is allowed to use a KMW > Blood Doll but not a KMW Heart of Darkness. I know, but you seem to be pissed by the concept of using new cards the way the old ones should work. So until you reconsider, the next best thing is to note functional changes and play whatever we can. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnb65f...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] Pissed? How do I seem pissed by the concept? I note that it is a bad idea (temporarily flip-flopping a most-recent printing rule), but that is far from the same as being pissed by the concept. [ quoted text not captured ]

lehrbuch wrote: > You can't dodge that so easily. You'll need a crack team of linguists / > rules-lawyers on hand at your event (or WW will need them on staff) to > determine if the punctuation does change the function of the card or not. Listen. As pointed out, this is being made way more complicated that it has any need to be. Cards from new sets that are reprints would work identically to how they worked before the new set came out for 30 days. Even if they had different text. It is very simple. Really. > So, does that mean you want KMW Anarch Revolts (for example) to be legal > with the old text for 30 days - how are you going to explain that to > someone who only has KMW cards? The same way I'd explain what Wake says when I play with people who only have Jyhad cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > What if "When the difference is noticed" is during the Final? Or after the > tournament? Or how about after she plays one nasty combo but before she > plays another with a different superior discipline? That is just as likely to happen *after* 30 days have passed as before--it took us, like, months to notice that Brachah, for instance, was misprinted, and didn't notice till someone put herin a deck thinking she had POT. This happened well after the 30 day legality mark. I'm not seeing how it makes any difference *when* these things come up. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:13:03 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbnfa...@news.chello.hu... >> Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards >> from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch >> Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an >> "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text >> exists. This seems quite logical. > >No more so than the current. > >In fact, having the new copy - the one with the most recent card text - >not do what it says is quite a bit less "logical" than the current. yeah. I thought at least one part of the reason for the 30 day rule (as applied to all cards), is, for NON-tournament games, to play all the new cards and texts, to _get used to_ how they all work, before dropping into a tournament environment with the new cards/texts. it'd seem odd to sit around playing social games with red lists and trophies, but anarch revolt still having it's old effect. and not being able to play my uber heart of darkness deck that abuses the new change because we're still on the old text. ;) salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:27:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] maybe Gregory was making a joke on that one? i hope so..... :D [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:06:48 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsnb65f...@news.chello.hu... >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:59:50 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> It is highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone uses a KMW Blood >> Doll >> >> instead of a Blood Doll from an earlier set. It is one of those >> things >> > >> > Or highly unintuitive to nitpick on why someone is allowed to use a >> KMW >> > Blood Doll but not a KMW Heart of Darkness. >> >> I know, but you seem to be pissed by the concept of using new cards the >> way >> the old ones should work. So until you reconsider, the next best >> thing is >> to note functional changes and play whatever we can. > > Pissed? How do I seem pissed by the concept? Oh, jumping at me with this and that. > I note that it is a bad idea (temporarily flip-flopping a most-recent > printing > rule), but that is far from the same as being pissed by the concept. I see promise in changing the current system. At least in theory. Because when someone comes up and says I can't use my Blood Doll, Blur or whatnot at the tournament because it is the most recent printing, it takes me great restraint not to say "whoa! why don't you *play* the game for a change, instead of being a dick about it". I'm not sure why the gun symbol makes "Additional Strike / Two Additional Strikes" that friggin' complicated for a card that's been about since Jyhad and probably got reprinted in about every second set. I think the game and tournament rules should allow for as little as possible of such antisocial behaviour. Not that I would have anything against being antisocial in general; it is special aspects of antisocial behaviour that bug me. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:16:30 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:27:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >> >> "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in >> message >> news:2005030814...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... >>>> You must have missed the point: it doesn't matter what the text says. >>>> You use the old text until March 23rd and the new text after March >>>> 23rd. >>> >>> So we should be playing Keminitri (Adv) as Keminitri until the 21st? >> >> Oh, for fuck's sake.... > > maybe Gregory was making a joke on that one? i hope so..... :D Yeah. I mean, it's a sick joke to say what he did. We all know that it's the 23rd. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Peter D Bakija wrote: > lehrbuch wrote: > > > You can't dodge that so easily. You'll need a crack team of linguists / > > rules-lawyers on hand at your event (or WW will need them on staff) to > > determine if the punctuation does change the function of the card or not. > > Listen. As pointed out, this is being made way more complicated that it has > any need to be. Cards from new sets that are reprints would work identically > to how they worked before the new set came out for 30 days. Even if they had > different text. It is very simple. Really. > > > So, does that mean you want KMW Anarch Revolts (for example) to be legal > > with the old text for 30 days - how are you going to explain that to > > someone who only has KMW cards? > > The same way I'd explain what Wake says when I play with people who only > have Jyhad cards. What, by telling them to follow the most recent printing? I rather suspect that it'd be more like telling them not to follow Imogen's printed capacity - i.e., "this is one of those rare exceptions where you don't follow the most recent printing." Thing is, in Imogen's case, you don't have to go back to that same person in 30 days and say, "Oh, by the way, Imogen follows MRP now." Nor would you have to do anything similar in the case of Wake. This is by no means an insurmountable obstacle, but it is certainly more confusing to a new player than simply "cards with that symbol are not tournament legal until date X." Yes, it's irritating that we can't use blood dolls and wakes that we payed for when everyone knows what they do, but that irritation passes in 30 days (or your money back!*). A newbie's confusion could seriously slow down (or stop altogether) their enthusiasm for the game. John *White Wolf does not actually offer to give your money back if you are still irritated in 30 days. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > > > What if "When the difference is noticed" is during the Final? Or after the > > tournament? Or how about after she plays one nasty combo but before she > > plays another with a different superior discipline? > > That is just as likely to happen *after* 30 days have passed as before--it > took us, like, months to notice that Brachah, for instance, was misprinted, > and didn't notice till someone put herin a deck thinking she had POT. This > happened well after the 30 day legality mark. I'm not seeing how it makes > any difference *when* these things come up. The difference is that 30 days is a decent amount of time during which such errors can be found and a notice posted to the newsgroup. The issue was publicly known shortly after the GenCon draft event where CE was first played. It can be expected that after 30 days, those with access to the newsgroup would be aware of the misprint. It can not be expected that within 1 day of the cards being available, individuals are already aware what is and is not a misprint. - Eric Chiang

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kg5s211tejn7a5g2l...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:27:57 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >>> So we should be playing Keminitri (Adv) as Keminitri until the 21st? >> >>Oh, for fuck's sake.... > > maybe Gregory was making a joke on that one? i hope so..... :D I think Mr. Pettigrew enjoys pushing my buttons. S'Okay. He wasn't the first and he no doubt won't be last. Fred (more buttons than the elevator in the Sears Tower...)

[ quoted text not captured ] I wouldn't exactly say they're rare or non-existant. Let's see, we have: Sabbat War: Creation Rites, Power Structure Final Nights: Al-Ashrad, Catacombs Bloodlines: (No reprints) Camarilla: Brachah, Awe, Murder of Crows Black Hand: Imogen Gehenna: (No reprints) 10th Anniversary: Antoinette, Business Pressure, Hell Hound I can't recall anything about misprinted reprints from Anarchs or KMW at the moment (can anyone think of any)? Overall it seems the norm for a set to have at least one misprinted card...so not exactly rare per se. - Eric Chiang

LSJ wrote: > No. Khalil will contest another Khalil, for example. The Reverend will > not contest a Khalil in play. Different unique cards are functionally > different, if only in contesting (but also with regards to The Name > Forgotten, etc.) Fair enough. I would have said: all unique cards contest with identically named cards, they function identically in this regard. Therefore "Khalil" contests with "Khalil" and "The Reverend" contests with "The Reverend". Phrasing the contestion functionality carefully makes them appear to be functionally identical. Hence, why a single description of contestion in the rulebook (4.1) suffices, rather than hundreds of "X contests copies of X", "Y contests copies of Y", "Z contests copies of Z" statements. Doesn't really matter, the point is that deciding which cards are functionally identical or not can be contentious. Hence, why it's a good idea to have the current not-legal-for-30-days clause - to prevent needing to make this decision. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

jnew...@difsol.com wrote: > This is by no means an insurmountable obstacle, but it is certainly > more confusing to a new player than simply "cards with that symbol are > not tournament legal until date X." Yeah, see, I'm kind of seeing the whole issue of how this affects "new players" as kind of moot--the game is already highly confusing for new players, due to there being lots of cards that don't do what they say they do, and cards having different texts across different sets. I think the benefits to new players of allowing reprints (i.e. you can use most of the cards you buy immediately) vastly outweighs the possibly disadvantages (sometimes you get confused. But that happens anyway already). [ quoted text not captured ]

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > The difference is that 30 days is a decent amount of time during which > such errors can be found and a notice posted to the newsgroup. The > issue was publicly known shortly after the GenCon draft event where CE > was first played. It can be expected that after 30 days, those with > access to the newsgroup would be aware of the misprint. It can not be > expected that within 1 day of the cards being available, individuals > are already aware what is and is not a misprint. But it would be irrelevant if it was or was not a misprint, going by what folks are suggesting. If the card in the new set is different somehow, you ignore the changes beofer 30 days are up. After 30 days, you magically make all the old cards say what the new card says. Or whatever. The problem with Brachah was that she was misprinted, and that she is misprinted *still* is problematic, even though, like, 2 years have passed--people *still* think she has POT. I'm not seeing how it is somehow more problematic that someone might notice this the day after the set comes out as opposed to two months later. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:06:48 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Pissed? How do I seem pissed by the concept? > > Oh, jumping at me with this and that. Sorry I wasn't clear -- I'm not looking for vague handwaving. I'm not pissed, but you seem bent on changing that. Sorry to disappoint you. Pointing out inconsistencies (or whatever -- if you want to cite specific examples, I can tailor my response more suitably) is not "jumping at you". It's pointing out inconsistencies. >> I note that it is a bad idea (temporarily flip-flopping a most-recent >> printing >> rule), but that is far from the same as being pissed by the concept. > > > I see promise in changing the current system. At least in theory. Because > when someone comes up and says I can't use my Blood Doll, Blur or whatnot > at the tournament because it is the most recent printing, it takes me > great restraint not to say "whoa! why don't you *play* the game for a > change, instead of being a dick about it". I'm not sure why the gun It takes you great restraint, perhaps. How much restraint do you find you have to exercise when someone points out some other violation of the rules? How much would you expect when someone pointed it out over the minorly-changed Heart of Darkness? Over the majorly-changed Anarch Revolt? Over the not-yet-legal Black Sunrise? > symbol makes "Additional Strike / Two Additional Strikes" that friggin' > complicated for a card that's been about since Jyhad and probably got > reprinted in about every second set. It doesn't make it complicated. Why make it out that that is the reason? Can't think of any argument against the actual reason, so you invent reasons that are easier to knock down? > I think the game and tournament rules should allow for as little as > possible of such antisocial behaviour. Not that I would have anything > against being antisocial in general; it is special aspects of antisocial > behaviour that bug me. Like painting someone as pissed when they correct you? Or is that another matter of difficult restraint? -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> On some level, players have to understand there's a 30 day limitation > for new cards. If a player doesn't understand THAT, he'll only create a > legal deck by chance. So if they have to understand that, why not make it absolute rather than require yet another hoop to jump through? You're the one who said to remove unnecessary nuances. . . . > exists. And this situation really isn't the worst one by far: to play > the card, a player has to at least know that former version of it > existed. He should go a little further and make sure that he knows what > those versions did - which is what he should do for all the cards he > uses anyway. No, that's not true. To play a card, one does not necessarily need to know that a former version existed. And who do you know that would actually check all prior versions of a card? Heck, I don't do that *now*, and I'd argue that I'm not a newbie. >> What may also cause confusion is the converse -- players not knowing >> what is and isn't a reprint. I've got a group with lots of new >> players, and it would be a *nightmare* to tell them which cards were >> and weren't legal from the set. > > See above. I have no idea what's nightmarish about it. It's pretty > simple. Simple, sure. Time-consuming, though. And some players would rather not build decks by discussing their contents with others. So many issues here. I've had to tell people where cards appear. And once they know that you know. . . they ask you a million questions. What about Taste? What about Mighty Grapple? What about Aid from Bats? What about Swallowed? Repeat ad nauseum. It just isn't worth it. I have better things to do with my time -- for instance, I'd rather teach them how to play. > This seems overstated to me. If you stop and think about new players > considering using a reprint card, it shouldn't be hard to figure out if > it's legal or not and get it right. In most expansions (things like Assuming they're going to do some checking, yes. But remember who we're talking about: people who bring illegal decks to tournaments. Now, how do you get these people to bring valid decks? Make things simple. > Camarilla Edition aside), they should know they can't use anything from > the booster packs. The only things they can use are from precons and > then only after checking to see if a card is a reprint. Probably they'd > want to know from what previous edition and if the card text was the > same. If they're considering using a new card they have no knowledge Too many assumptions Fred. No way new players will want to know if it's from a previous edition. At least, not necessarily. > because they suspect it might be a reprint, they know they have to > investiage its legality anyway so they should be alert enough to do it > right. If they HAVE knowledge of the existing card in previous > editions, then they know they have the right one and they know what it > does - including if the new wording has changes. This sounds like a bunch of steps to me. A bunch of non-trivial steps which include the nuances to deck-building. > If you don't know what the reprints are, you don't know about the card > anyway, so I fail to see the issue. I think the knowledge issue tends False. I love these little leaps of logic you make, Fred. They're done so quietly that you'd almost miss them. I can know about a card without knowing its creation history. Many players in my playgroup satisfy that condition. > to favor older players anyway - for much better reasons than that > they're aware they can use a new expansion reprint card right away. So > I'm going to wave my hand over this issue. ("Go away,...go away!" :-) Waving it away, though, doesn't make your point stand any taller. :) >> My two points are this: 1) the simple universal approach for the >> "generally good reason" is consistent and does the job, and 2) players >> who know what are/aren't reprints can be expected to care more about >> such things as deck construction in general. > > OK, I don't understand this. So I can't respond. I don't know how better to explain it. You snipped my point about the nuances argument you made applying to my case. . . . I don't know how else to demonstrate that according to our metric, simple is best. So. . . a single indication of what is/isn't legal is simpler than a 3-step process. And who wants to do this much research for 30 days anyway? People would rather play V:TES. Or at least, I'd rather they did than look up what the text on Taste of Vitae was in every set since 1994. Ankur

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Listen. As pointed out, this is being made way more complicated > that it has any need to be. Cards from new sets that are reprints > would work identically to how they worked before the new set > came out for 30 days. Even if they had different text. It is > very simple. Really. OK. That's a different idea to what I thought I was talking about - that only functionally identical cards would be legal. Yes, the idea that all reprints work according to previous printing/errata until after 30 days is a cleaner and better idea, than that. I guess there's still going to be some corner case issues about whether a card is a reprint or not. For this rule was, "Camille Devereux, The Raven" a reprint of "Raven" or "Camille Devereux" or neither, for example? I'm not convinced that it's easier than the current leave-the-set-alone- for-30-days rule. The current rule does not require players to know what is and what isn't a reprint and is more equitable for players that are distant from a distribution centre. It only requires that players know the date of legality and the current date. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:05:13 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: | |> times, and have learned to recognize this sort of yammering as "Things |> someone starts to do when he doesn't have any ground to stand on, but |> wants to argue anyway because he's a whiny bitch." | | Or maybe I just have something to say? Hard to tell without reading, | ain't it? Just because you want to say something doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about. And you're a fine one to talk about 'reading' considering you routinely fail to read opposing posts thoroughly. |> Being deliberately obtuse doesn't help advance your case, nor does it |> impress anyone. It just confirms what we knew for a long time (as I |> note you're spending time conducting this sort of semantic dodging in |> other threads as well), which is that you JUST DON'T GET IT. | | I find it hard to believe that you of all people would try to lecture | me in manners or arguing. Rather entertaining twist of events, but | the credibility part is seriously lacking. See? Already a reading failure. Above, you will note that I never mentioned anything about manners (which would be quite hypocritical, wouldn't it). PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort to demonizing me, you've already lost. You should be surprised that I DON'T lecture you more often, considering how poorly you try to make your points. My credibility, of course, stands on its own quite nicely as always. I wonder how confused you'd have been if I jumped into the DI thread as well -- considering it should be patently obvious that DI is a high-power card that is NEVER a poor inclusion in any deck? Being on the same side might've made your head explode. |> Honestly, I recommend a more solitary hobby, like crocheting. | | Did the inspiration to contribute this particular piece of advice have | to do anything with the fact that you can't (and never could) come up | with any real arguments? You know, it is easier to call names and be Sorry to break it to you, but just because you can't understand my arguments or don't want to accept the basic truths they're founded on doesn't mean they're not real. Thanks for playing. Byebye! |> | Okay. So we sit down to play in a non-tournament environment. The cards |> | from the new set are not yet tournament legal.* New copies of Anarch |> | Revolt follow the old text and functionality, as the card is still an |> | "Anarch Revolt", even though a pending change in the official text |> | exists. This seems quite logical. |> |> Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because they've |> bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local |> playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the new |> card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is _NEW_ |> text. | | Most common example. We are talking about a new player who started to Correct, it IS the most common example, because, hey, it's the one you'll run into most often, right? That's why it's the "most common". And that's also why it's what you want to look at. | play within 1 month of a new set coming out AND wants to integrate The "1 month" is an arbitrary amount that you have inserted as fictional statistical support for your argument. No time limit need be specified; many players are still "new" after 6 months because they are only able to make it once or twice a month. It is quite reasonable to assume that these players have never seen Anarch Revolt, the old version. We should really make clear here that Anarch Revolt is just one of many cards that have changed function. Any of those new reprints could be in question instead of Anarch Revolt. It is simply a convenient example. | into the local playgroup BUT knows nothing about any previoius sets. Of course they want to integrate into the local playgroup. They were brought in by someone already in that playgroup. It's the most common (there's that word again) way that people MEET playgroups, you know? |> So they go to a tournament, and their cards are legal but their deck |> functions totally differently than they thought it would. Is that a |> good plan? Of course it isn't. | | .... AND they go to a tournament? Please? With new KMW cards? Are you Of course. The playgroup makes sure they're invited. At least, OUR playgroup makes sure all new players are invited to upcoming tournaments. I know Boston does the same, as does LA. I'm sure many others do. | sure their biggest problem will be how reprints work? Given, how, um, | they can't buy a starter or a booster without getting NEW (that is, | tournament illegal) cards? There are plenty of starters available that are not KMW. Also plenty of boosters. Often these are sold in stores. Typically a player will buy a starter or two of a clan they like (I hear Black Hand had some clan-based starters), and then when a new set comes out, buy some boosters of THAT set. Perhaps they buy some boosters of a previous set, too, and just don't happen to pick up one that contains Anarch Revolt. | You know, you're lucky your train of thought did not carry any passangers. | They would not be alive by now after such a derail. When you bother reading what I say, you probably understand it better. You should try it sometime. So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." b) "OK, if any of your new KMW cards are actually old reprints, they will use the old text from the old version of the card. Yeah, I know you don't know the old stuff yet. Don't worry, you can look up which are reprints on the Internet, and then in a different spot, you can find the old text for each of those reprints, and THEN you can build your deck." Which do you think a newbie is more likely to be able to do? |> The 30-day rule exists for a number of good reasons. Many people have |> pointed those out; none of them have been refuted YET. The most |> overriding is this: |> |> It's a Collectible Card Game. |> Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. |> |> No shit, really... I'll repeat it for those of you who are slow. |> |> Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. |> If you Didn't Collect the Cards, You Can't Make the Deck You Want. | | Aside of the stench that protrudes from your tone, you finally made "waaahhhh, derek called me a nanny boo boo". | a point. Or at least, you wrote something that can be loosely put | into the "opinion or fact" hat. Almost borders on meaningful | contribution. Boy, I guess that really busts up your statement above, huh? Of course, this is one of the few times you bothered to acknowledge it; I make a point of discussing the issue itself in almost every post. Other people don't have trouble seeing them... why do you? Hmmmmmmm. (By the way, it's fact. Right smack in the middle of the game design of every CCG/TCG is that unspoken rule; collecting the cards is part of the game. Otherwise, the companies would just print full sets.) |> The 30-day rule allows everyone an equal "head start" with regards to |> distribution, etc., and helps ensure that everyone has the same |> opportunity to purchase/acquire the new cards before the cards |> themselves become legal. | | Congratulations. You've successfully repeated something I wrote down | about a week ago. In that sense, try reading back; in my first post | regarding this matter I listed some pros and cons. This was one of | the pros of the current system. It (and its premise, 'Collecting the cards is part of the game') is the overriding one, Daneel. That's my point. There's no need to whack off rambling about all the rest of the issues; you have to knock down the above one before anything else even matters. I guess I'm a bit more used to the "analysis" side than you, huh? | .... this felt real good. I missed you, Derek. Most people aren't this | offensive, so I have trouble being offensive towards them. But you | are different... All this anger, all this hate in one man. That is | really admirable. Keep it up! ;) Have you gotten your Tin Shirt points for the week, then? Plus, you misspelled "disgust". - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLjsDtQZlu3o7QpERArcVAJ4nvyrqhl0uCtmdUrek06hvs1MFpgCcC4g1 xL1OhbMIK+hBt3G7hE921eY= =5QVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >> On some level, players have to understand there's a 30 day limitation for new cards. If a player doesn't understand THAT, he'll >> only create a legal deck by chance. > > So if they have to understand that, why not make it absolute rather than > require yet another hoop to jump through? You're the one who said to > remove unnecessary nuances. . . . I am. Why do suggest it's not? Please notice, there's two ways to look at an "inconsistency" here. You can focus on the expansion symbol on the card or you can look at whether the card's a reprint or a new card. You insist on suggesting the focus is on the expansion symbol is the natural thing, you're going to come to the conclusion that it's more complex to divide up whole sets into the legal and the illegal. But many players seem to think otherwise, in my observation. The look at a Dreams of the Sphinx with a KMW symbol vs. one with a Final Nights symbol and natural assume both are legal or illegal. And, despite what many here are suggesting, don't have that much trouble understanding the concept of a new card or that it should be illegal until a specific date. Thus, unnecessary nuance. >> exists. And this situation really isn't the worst one by far: to play >> the card, a player has to at least know that former version of it >> existed. He should go a little further and make sure that he knows what >> those versions did - which is what he should do for all the cards he >> uses anyway. > > No, that's not true. To play a card, one does not necessarily need to know > that a former version existed. But to assume it's legal before the date, he does. >> I have no idea what's nightmarish about it. It's pretty simple. > > Simple, sure. Time-consuming, though. Why the heck is it "time-consuming"?!? Look, it's REALLY simple: the player has either seen the card before or he hasn't. If he hasn't seen it, he should assume it's illegal. He only has to go further than that if he's curious about it for some reason. Unless you mean, players are going to look through all the precons and start wondering if they can use any of these cards before March 23rd. They can *ALREADY* do that! Only difference is that now, they'd have to look through the precon, go find out if the card already exists in a previous printing, AND have to go out and score an old version of a card. It's actually MORE complicated NOW. Sorry. Don't mean to get impatient but this really isn't rocket science. > And some players would rather not > build decks by discussing their contents with others. They don't have to. They just can't use one of the cards out of the precons without checking and seeing that it existed in a previous printing. AS THEY DO NOW. The only difference is that with the change, having done that they'd be able to use the reprint the got out of the precon instead of finding an old one. > I've had to tell people where cards appear. And once they know that you > know. . . they ask you a million questions. What about Taste? What about > Mighty Grapple? What about Aid from Bats? What about Swallowed? Repeat ad > nauseum. It just isn't worth it. I have better things to do with my time > -- for instance, I'd rather teach them how to play Well, I suppose if it's all that much of a problem, you could point them at the lists on line and let them discover the answers themselves. I don't care about this. Having newbies pepper me with questions about what's legal and what's not seems like a GOOD thing to me - I'd love to have newbies who were that interested in the tournament game. YMMV, I guess. But again, all these questions could be asked about the contents of a precon for other reasons, so this is not introducing a new complexity, AFAICS. > Assuming they're going to do some checking, yes. But remember who we're > talking about: people who bring illegal decks to tournaments. Now, how do > you get these people to bring valid decks? Make things simple. Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the DCI is having problems with Magic? This isn't exactly an untried rule, you know. (My perception, for what it's worth, is no. They've never had much of a problem about it that I noticed.) >> Camarilla Edition aside), they should know they can't use anything from >> the booster packs. The only things they can use are from precons and >> then only after checking to see if a card is a reprint. Probably they'd >> want to know from what previous edition and if the card text was the >> same. If they're considering using a new card they have no knowledge > > Too many assumptions Fred. No way new players will want to know if it's > from a previous edition. At least, not necessarily. Then they won't suspect it's legal and won't use it, will they? How is THIS a problem?!? >> because they suspect it might be a reprint, they know they have to >> investiage its legality anyway so they should be alert enough to do it >> right. If they HAVE knowledge of the existing card in previous >> editions, then they know they have the right one and they know what it >> does - including if the new wording has changes. > > This sounds like a bunch of steps to me. A bunch of non-trivial steps > which include the nuances to deck-building. The point is, no newbies should ever be tempted to use a card unless they have knowledge that it already existed. >> If you don't know what the reprints are, you don't know about the card >> anyway, so I fail to see the issue. I think the knowledge issue tends > > False. I love these little leaps of logic you make, Fred. They're done so > quietly that you'd almost miss them. I can know about a card without > knowing its creation history. Many players in my playgroup satisfy that > condition. HUH?!? What does that mean: "know about a card without knowing its creation history"? Point is, do you know it existed before KMW? If yes, you may use it. If no, you shouldn't assume you can use it. > I don't know how better to explain it. You snipped my point about the > nuances argument you made applying to my case. . . . I don't know how else > to demonstrate that according to our metric, simple is best. Agreed. It's the definition of "simple" that I maintain needs work. When real people tend to assume the opposite of the existing rule, that's a good indication that it's not as "simple" as it could be. > People would rather play V:TES. Or at least, I'd rather they did than look > up what the text on Taste of Vitae was in every set since 1994. Who needs to look up anything they didn't already have to in order to use a card? :-P Fred

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess there's still going to be some corner case issues about whether > a card is a reprint or not. For this rule was, "Camille Devereux, The > Raven" a reprint of "Raven" or "Camille Devereux" or neither, for example? Sure. But this issue already exists. Everyone has to grapple with it anyway. I fail to see its relevance. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] If you are going to rule that for 30 days reprints are legal and played as previous printing/errata then it's relevant. It's not relevant after the 30 day period as "Camille Devereux, The Raven" changes what the previous printings are. Or are we talking at cross-purposes? -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

lehrbuch wrote: > I'm not convinced that it's easier than the current leave-the-set-alone- > for-30-days rule. Oh, I'm not either. I think it is very clear that the current "all cards from new set are illegal for 30 days" system's greatest strength is that it is easy, completely unambigious, and clean. I'm just not convinced that it is necessary, as the game is already frought with rampant confusion from various rulings, errata, and wording changes, and making reprints legal during that 30 days before new cards become legal would have any meaurable impact on the current level of confusion, but would make may people's lives easier. [ quoted text not captured ]

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:422e42c5$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah! Got it. You're right - that is a corner case. I guess they never "merged" any card names in Magic. Fred

> Final Nights: Al-Ashrad, Catacombs Al-Ashrad was misprinted in Final Nights? I'm glad somebody finally told me.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:39:10 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> I'm not convinced that it's easier than the current leave-the-set-alone- >> for-30-days rule. > >Oh, I'm not either. I think it is very clear that the current "all cards >from new set are illegal for 30 days" system's greatest strength is that it >is easy, completely unambigious, and clean. > >I'm just not convinced that it is necessary, as the game is already frought >with rampant confusion from various rulings, errata, and wording changes, >and making reprints legal during that 30 days before new cards become legal >would have any meaurable impact on the current level of confusion, but would >make may people's lives easier. That, and it's going to lose new (or very old) players that travel X miles to play, who are unable to swap out their cards, and are essentially going straight home again. While some might say "They'll learn next time.", I'd say there won't be a next time, for most players. Morgan Vening

>> So if they have to understand that, why not make it absolute rather >> than require yet another hoop to jump through? You're the one who said >> to remove unnecessary nuances. . . . > > I am. Why do suggest it's not? Huh? > Please notice, there's two ways to look at an "inconsistency" here. > You can focus on the expansion symbol on the card or you can look at > whether the card's a reprint or a new card. You insist on suggesting > the focus is on the expansion symbol is the natural thing, you're going > to come to the conclusion that it's more complex to divide up whole sets > into the legal and the illegal. Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. This basic point seems to be the point of our contention. Yes, experienced players (and thus, most of those who post here) will tend to think that it is far more natural and logical that reprints are legal. But I'm allowing for those who wouldn't necessarily have been posting here yet. . . you know, the new people. And besides that, how much more simple can it get than to look at card X. Without needing additional information, you *know* whether or not it's legal. Done. Finished. No more discussion. No exceptions. No conditions. Here's another example -- English. English is by far the most horrible piece of garbage ever concocted into a single language. Exception after exception, nuance after nuance. I should know -- it's not my first. But you know what? After you learn it, you know, hardcore learn it, it seems easy enough to insist that others spell correctly and write grammatically sound sentences. And why not? It's. . . logical. Right? > But many players seem to think otherwise, in my observation. The look Unless your observation includes a large demographic of players (read new) that are not currently represented in this argument, you're bound to come to a skewed conclusion. > at a Dreams of the Sphinx with a KMW symbol vs. one with a Final Nights > symbol and natural assume both are legal or illegal. And, despite what > many here are suggesting, don't have that much trouble understanding the > concept of a new card or that it should be illegal until a specific > date. > > Thus, unnecessary nuance. Only for one demographic. Consider other people. Hell, let me say this: I personally would be in favor of reprints being legal immediately. (Avoiding of course the sticky point of cards which have changed function in the newer printing.) But I recognize that it's better for the game, for the community, and for new players, not to add more complications. V:TES has a high learning curve. Takes weeks to learn the mechanics, and weeks more to follow the actions which are taken in a game. Some people after 10 years of playing are still learning table dynamics. And yes, for new players, complications can include trying to find out if a card is a reprint. >> No, that's not true. To play a card, one does not necessarily need to >> know that a former version existed. > > But to assume it's legal before the date, he does. There's that step we're talking about. The point where a player must know more to execute the more logical rule that you're talking about. . . . You know, I have players show up with invalid crypts for the first few weeks/months they play the game. And though I tell them, I also tell them that it's ok. It's because they simply *don't know*. >>> I have no idea what's nightmarish about it. It's pretty simple. >> >> Simple, sure. Time-consuming, though. > > Why the heck is it "time-consuming"?!? Look, it's REALLY simple: the > player has either seen the card before or he hasn't. If he hasn't seen > it, he should assume it's illegal. He only has to go further than that > if he's curious about it for some reason. What if he's seen it before, but it's a promo card, which is also not legal yet? What if he's seen it in someone else's box and isn't sure what set it was from? What if he's seen it in a dream with pink bunnies telling him that it's legal? Why not just have a one-stop check-it-here check-it-now solution? I mean, seriously? What's the rush? > Unless you mean, players are going to look through all the precons and > start wondering if they can use any of these cards before March 23rd. > They can *ALREADY* do that! Only difference is that now, they'd have to > look through the precon, go find out if the card already exists in a > previous printing, AND have to go out and score an old version of a > card. It's actually MORE complicated NOW. No they don't. They look at the cards in the precon, and say, "Man, look at that conveniently-located set symbol here in the top right-hand corner of these cards. Gosh, can't play that for 30 days." DONE. You're the one making this complicated. > Sorry. Don't mean to get impatient but this really isn't rocket > science. You're right. And I'm wondering how you're missing the point here. >> And some players would rather not build decks by discussing their >> contents with others. > > They don't have to. They just can't use one of the cards out of the > precons without checking and seeing that it existed in a previous > printing. AS THEY DO NOW. The only difference is that with the change, > having done that they'd be able to use the reprint the got out of the > precon instead of finding an old one. Thus effectively, they are unable to use cards which are reprinted. So let's just make that official, shall we? > Well, I suppose if it's all that much of a problem, you could point them > at the lists on line and let them discover the answers themselves. I > don't care about this. Having newbies pepper me with questions about Look, not everyone is going to have the time or effort to go look. I'd rather them play than look up crap online. > what's legal and what's not seems like a GOOD thing to me - I'd love to > have newbies who were that interested in the tournament game. YMMV, I > guess. But again, all these questions could be asked about the contents > of a precon for other reasons, so this is not introducing a new > complexity, AFAICS. Well, I don't see how it's *not* adding complexity. Fred, I've played with newbies. I've got a whole city full of em. Where are your experiences that would suggest how smooth this would be? >> Assuming they're going to do some checking, yes. But remember who we're >> talking about: people who bring illegal decks to tournaments. Now, how >> do you get these people to bring valid decks? Make things simple. > > Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the DCI > is having problems with Magic? This isn't exactly an untried rule, you > know. (My perception, for what it's worth, is no. They've never had > much of a problem about it that I noticed.) Magic is a different animal. The players are different. The game is simpler. Reprints are block-limited. Most people who play Magic have played Magic before at some point. Magic doesn't have as complex card interactions as V:TES (or at least didn't when I was playing), which means that slightly different card texts have less of an impact than say, in V:TES. >> Too many assumptions Fred. No way new players will want to know if it's >> from a previous edition. At least, not necessarily. > > Then they won't suspect it's legal and won't use it, will they? How is > THIS a problem?!? So, wouldn't that newbie feel like it's a bit unfair that he could have used card X if he had just *known* it was legal? And here he's sitting down playing his deck in a tournament for 3 rounds and he's upset because he didn't know? I wouldn't like that, I can tell ya. >> This sounds like a bunch of steps to me. A bunch of non-trivial steps >> which include the nuances to deck-building. > > The point is, no newbies should ever be tempted to use a card unless they > have knowledge that it already existed. Great. See above. >>> If you don't know what the reprints are, you don't know about the card >>> anyway, so I fail to see the issue. I think the knowledge issue tends >> >> False. I love these little leaps of logic you make, Fred. They're done so >> quietly that you'd almost miss them. I can know about a card without >> knowing its creation history. Many players in my playgroup satisfy that >> condition. > > HUH?!? What does that mean: "know about a card without knowing its > creation history"? Point is, do you know it existed before KMW? If > yes, you may use it. If no, you shouldn't assume you can use it. sigh. >> I don't know how better to explain it. You snipped my point about the >> nuances argument you made applying to my case. . . . I don't know how >> else to demonstrate that according to our metric, simple is best. > > Agreed. It's the definition of "simple" that I maintain needs work. > When real people tend to assume the opposite of the existing rule, > that's a good indication that it's not as "simple" as it could be. Again, you're not lookinng at the people who might be confused by this rule. You're only seeing experienced players. I'd like up the 25 or so new players I've brought in so far if I could, and they'd testify to it. I can drum up a few dozen more from Danville if you need further evidence of real people with the opposite problem. >> People would rather play V:TES. Or at least, I'd rather they did than >> look up what the text on Taste of Vitae was in every set since 1994. > > Who needs to look up anything they didn't already have to in order to > use a card? sigh. > :-P Right back at you Freddie boy. :) Ankur

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, the Final Nights version of Al-Ashrad did not include his +1 bleed.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:37:47 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:06:48 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Pissed? How do I seem pissed by the concept? >> >> Oh, jumping at me with this and that. > > Sorry I wasn't clear -- I'm not looking for vague handwaving. Okay, let's drop it. >> I see promise in changing the current system. At least in theory. >> Because >> when someone comes up and says I can't use my Blood Doll, Blur or >> whatnot >> at the tournament because it is the most recent printing, it takes me >> great restraint not to say "whoa! why don't you *play* the game for a >> change, instead of being a dick about it". I'm not sure why the gun > > It takes you great restraint, perhaps. > > How much restraint do you find you have to exercise when someone points > out some other violation of the rules? How much would you expect when > someone pointed it out over the minorly-changed Heart of Darkness? > Over the majorly-changed Anarch Revolt? Over the not-yet-legal Black > Sunrise? I'm generally a very rules-abiding person. I don't willingly break them, if I see a violation, I usually note to the player doing the violation, or a judge, etc. If someone complains about a player using a NEW card (like, Black Sunrise), I would agree. Giving the players time to get used to new cards is fair and nice, and I even agree with it. If it was through a card with changed text - like Heart of Darkness - then depending on the situation I would either agree (or, possibly, I wouldn't mind as long as the player plays according to the old text). But I see points against this. Was I thorough? No, wait - if someone points out a rules violation I generally find no reason to need to excercise restraint. I'm (almost) all for keeping the rules. We need rules to play a game. It's just that this rule - especially in its applied form - just doesn't feel right. >> symbol makes "Additional Strike / Two Additional Strikes" that friggin' >> complicated for a card that's been about since Jyhad and probably got >> reprinted in about every second set. > > It doesn't make it complicated. Why make it out that that is the reason? The reason is that it doesn't feel right. Not the rule itself - it has its points. But the fact that people would make it their concern to have other people replace their obvious reprints with non-reprints. The point, if one exists, is lost on me. > Can't think of any argument against the actual reason, so you invent > reasons that are easier to knock down? I kind of think I addressed most (if not all) reasons for this rule. In separate posts of this thread. But none of the rules quoted for the current system (as far as obvious reprints go) struck me as pretty strong. I never debated the part about NEW cards. I did debate the part about functionally different reprints, but given how that is only a minor part of the set, I conceded that point. Where I failed to find any unrefuted point concerning the upholding of the current system is the case of obvious reprints (whose functionality did not change). >> I think the game and tournament rules should allow for as little as >> possible of such antisocial behaviour. Not that I would have anything >> against being antisocial in general; it is special aspects of >> antisocial >> behaviour that bug me. > > Like painting someone as pissed when they correct you? Or is that > another matter of difficult restraint? I may or may not have certain issues with restraint in general, but I'm not sure all of them belong to this discussion here. Especially when I brought up arguments as well. True, my motivation can be labelled self-righteous (I don't think it is right, so I present arguments for it), but that does not in itself invalidate my points. IMHO, of course. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:53:39 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | Or maybe I just have something to say? Hard to tell without reading, > | ain't it? > > Just because you want to say something doesn't mean that you know what > you're talking about. And you're a fine one to talk about 'reading' > considering you routinely fail to read opposing posts thoroughly. [...] > PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort > to demonizing me, you've already lost. When it comes down to saying the same thing back, it's just words. Really. > You should be surprised that I DON'T lecture you more often, considering > how poorly you try to make your points. My credibility, of course, > stands on its own quite nicely as always. > > I wonder how confused you'd have been if I jumped into the DI thread as > well -- considering it should be patently obvious that DI is a > high-power card that is NEVER a poor inclusion in any deck? Being on > the same side might've made your head explode. That would've been unbearable. I'm glad you didn't do that. I would have needed to change sides immediately, so that I could avoid being on the same side with you. Or find some minor detail to nitpick so that I can create dissention in "our side". ;) > |> Honestly, I recommend a more solitary hobby, like crocheting. > | > | Did the inspiration to contribute this particular piece of advice have > | to do anything with the fact that you can't (and never could) come up > | with any real arguments? You know, it is easier to call names and be > > Sorry to break it to you, but just because you can't understand my > arguments or don't want to accept the basic truths they're founded on > doesn't mean they're not real. Thanks for playing. Byebye! Arguments? What arguments? If I see any, I'll try to understand them, but until then, you would be better off looking up the word. Argument is different from arguing; you wanted to refer to the latter word, not the former, I presume. "Arguing" is simply the act of keeping on your blindfolds even when facing an obviously solid deduction; "argument" would be something you actually contribute (that's under "C", before you ask). > |> Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because they've > |> bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local > |> playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the new > |> card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is > _NEW_ > |> text. > | > | Most common example. We are talking about a new player who started to > > Correct, it IS the most common example, because, hey, it's the one > you'll run into most often, right? That's why it's the "most common". > And that's also why it's what you want to look at. Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you. The most common example is when an old timer is already in a playing group. Sure, there are n00bies and there is also a fluctuation of them, but most old timers don't stop playing (the last time we lost a bunch of our group was after CE came out). Other than that, the majority is still people who are well into the stuff. THAT's the most common example. > | play within 1 month of a new set coming out AND wants to integrate > > The "1 month" is an arbitrary amount that you have inserted as fictional > statistical support for your argument. No time limit need be specified; > many players are still "new" after 6 months because they are only able > to make it once or twice a month. It is quite reasonable to assume that > these players have never seen Anarch Revolt, the old version. Not reasonable. You might've been better off quoting Heart of Darkness. But Anarch Revolt is common enough to be known by the majority of the folks. Not to mention the wonders of Internet communication. ANY n00bie who has been into the game for over a few weeks usually checks the card lists, the checklists, uses deck builder or card filtering applications, etc. Their scope of the game greatly exceeds the decks they build (or even the decks they play against). > We should really make clear here that Anarch Revolt is just one of many > cards that have changed function. Any of those new reprints could be in > question instead of Anarch Revolt. It is simply a convenient example. If there is a source listing all changed cards, and a checklist available for the set, etc, you can't be in the pitch dark. > | into the local playgroup BUT knows nothing about any previoius sets. > > Of course they want to integrate into the local playgroup. They were > brought in by someone already in that playgroup. It's the most common > (there's that word again) way that people MEET playgroups, you know? You rectify the example. It does not serve your purpose. > | sure their biggest problem will be how reprints work? Given, how, um, > | they can't buy a starter or a booster without getting NEW (that is, > | tournament illegal) cards? > > There are plenty of starters available that are not KMW. Also plenty of > boosters. Often these are sold in stores. Typically a player will buy > a starter or two of a clan they like (I hear Black Hand had some > clan-based starters), and then when a new set comes out, buy some > boosters of THAT set. Perhaps they buy some boosters of a previous set, > too, and just don't happen to pick up one that contains Anarch Revolt. Again, a player's knowledge of the cards is not limited to stuff they actually play or have. Not even to stuff they play against. Many players are interested in the game to a degree where they will be using deck builder or card filter applications or browse the Internet for decks, strategy discussions, messge boards, etc. Wanna say hi to the n00bies reading this? ;) > | You know, you're lucky your train of thought did not carry any > passangers. > | They would not be alive by now after such a derail. > > When you bother reading what I say, you probably understand it better. > You should try it sometime. PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort to demonizing me, you've already lost. > So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? > > a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." > > b) "OK, if any of your new KMW cards are actually old reprints, they > will use the old text from the old version of the card. Yeah, I know > you don't know the old stuff yet. Don't worry, you can look up which > are reprints on the Internet, and then in a different spot, you can find > the old text for each of those reprints, and THEN you can build your > deck." > > Which do you think a newbie is more likely to be able to do? How about his one: c) "OK, I generally advise you against using a card from the new expansion unless you are certain that the card is an unchanged reprint. Still, I know you don't have too many cards, so if you check on WW's site, or ask at our local board, we'll check for you which cards are NEW and which ones are reprints. This way you can use your newly acquired reprinted cards you just bought for $$." > "waaahhhh, derek called me a nanny boo boo". Derek is a meanie. I'm telling! > | a point. Or at least, you wrote something that can be loosely put > | into the "opinion or fact" hat. Almost borders on meaningful > | contribution. > > Boy, I guess that really busts up your statement above, huh? Of course, > this is one of the few times you bothered to acknowledge it; I make a > point of discussing the issue itself in almost every post. Even if that is the case, you could still improve the reception of your points by trimming down the offensive s/n ratio. I'm not saying you should, just pointing out something. > Other people don't have trouble seeing them... why do you? Hmmmmmmm. Maybe I actually _read_ posts? Including yours? > (By the way, it's fact. Right smack in the middle of the game design of > every CCG/TCG is that unspoken rule; collecting the cards is part of the > game. Otherwise, the companies would just print full sets.) I know. That's why I never debated the issue with NEW cards. I'm not saying I agree with you, but I do find it easy to focus on other points in your post when I wish to express my disagreement. ;) > |> The 30-day rule allows everyone an equal "head start" with regards to > |> distribution, etc., and helps ensure that everyone has the same > |> opportunity to purchase/acquire the new cards before the cards > |> themselves become legal. > | > | Congratulations. You've successfully repeated something I wrote down > | about a week ago. In that sense, try reading back; in my first post > | regarding this matter I listed some pros and cons. This was one of > | the pros of the current system. > > It (and its premise, 'Collecting the cards is part of the game') is the > overriding one, Daneel. That's my point. There's no need to whack off > rambling about all the rest of the issues; you have to knock down the > above one before anything else even matters. Yeah, that was my point too concerning the non-reprints issue. Altered text or functionality reprints are a grey area I currently avoid mostly because my original opinion has been refuted, and I'm not sure what I think anymore. It's something that is generally insignificant compared to some 150+ new cards and 150+ unaltered reprints. I'm currently focusing on the unaltered reprints. > I guess I'm a bit more used to the "analysis" side than you, huh? I guess you guess wrong. But I guess your reply won't be leaving us guessing about whether my guess about you guessing wrong was just a guess. > Plus, you misspelled "disgust". Luv you too. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On 8 Mar 2005 13:57:01 -0800, <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I can't recall anything about misprinted reprints from Anarchs or KMW > at the moment (can anyone think of any)? Overall it seems the norm for > a set to have at least one misprinted card...so not exactly rare per > se. Yeah, well, it _should_ be rare. I know it isn't. But it should. Like, maximum of 1 card every 4 sets (or so). -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:21:24 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > The problem with Brachah was that she was misprinted, and that she is > misprinted *still* is problematic, even though, like, 2 years have > passed--people *still* think she has POT. I'm not seeing how it is > somehow > more problematic that someone might notice this the day after the set > comes > out as opposed to two months later. Okay, here's a BAD idea. Everyone will hate this. Would it be possible/ feasible to use exchange programs to switch misprints to non-misprints? I know secluded playgroups probably won't be reached by those, and I'm not sure it would be worthwhile... Any thoughts? -- Bye, Daneel

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8cadnfC6qIa...@giganews.com... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > It's a Collectible Card Game. > Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. > > No shit, really... I'll repeat it for those of you who are slow. Sorry, wrong answer. Vtes is officially: Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM is a *trading card game* in which two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires known as Methuselahs. Throughout the world, Methuselahs manipulate their minions (mortals as well as younger vampires) to frustrate the designs of the other Methuselahs, just as they have for as long as they can remember. These eternal struggles, sometimes covert and subtle, sometimes open and spectacular, are collectively known as the Jyhad. Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs. > Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. > If you Didn't Collect the Cards, You Can't Make the Deck You Want. > > The 30-day rule allows everyone an equal "head start" with regards to > distribution, etc., and helps ensure that everyone has the same > opportunity to purchase/acquire the new cards before the cards > themselves become legal. Of course I completely agree with the 30 day rule.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnc6fr...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] I second the motion. Raille

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:ITmXd.5123$Ru.2329@okepread06... > > Again, no one suggested it was terrible complicated - only that > ignornant players tend to be surprised by it and it doesn't seem > like a necessary wrinkle. Well there is your problem. Ignorant players. Now why are they ingnorant? uhm, probably for 1 of 2 reasons. They just started playing and don't know and didn't have time to learn. or They people teaching them got lazy and skipped the fact a new set was being released and didn't happen to mention there was an official wait period. Raille

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:TjnXd.5129$Ru.2990@okepread06... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> I not sure who suggested it did. However, it might suggest that a >>> change to such a rule would be more convenient for all concerned. >> >> If it suggests that "wait 30 days" is too complicated, replacing >> "wait 30 days" with a no-less-complicated rule regarding a 30-day >> reverse application of the most-recent printing rule is clearly >> not the solution. > > I didn't say it was matter of complexity, exactly. My issue with > complexity is that people HERE who are trying to understand how a > reprints-allowed rule might work are turning it into a far more > complex change than it is. By several orders of magnitude. > > I'm just pointing out that a lot of players seem to intuitively > expect that reprints in new sets ought be legal immediately. > Whether that's more complicated or less complicated than the real > rule doesn't strike me as relevant. Either way, I assert it would > be more convenient to allow. You pointed out they are ignorant. Its a failure on our part as senior players to educate them. If your local group has an issue with this, then your *part* of the problem, and complaining here will never fix that problem. Raille

Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: > Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around > the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an > additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain > (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. This basic point seems to > be the point of our contention. Yes, experienced players (and thus, most > of those who post here) will tend to think that it is far more natural and > logical that reprints are legal. But I'm allowing for those who wouldn't > necessarily have been posting here yet. . . you know, the new people. Actually, I believe reprints being legal would benefit new people more than others. I can just use an old Dreams or Alastor from my collection, but newbies don't have the same resources to draw upon. They'll think, if I have the card, and it's exactly the same as the old one, why can't I use this new one? Sure, it's an additional step to check if a card is a reprint, and to look up old card text. But the newbie doesn't have to. He can leave KMW cards alone for 30 days, and it'll be just like it is today. Or he can put in the effort and use them sooner as a reward. Rogar

Daneel wrote: >Okay, here's a BAD idea. Everyone will hate this. Would it be possible/ >feasible to use exchange programs to switch misprints to non-misprints? Uhh, what are you talking about? What is a bad idea? Publishing misprints? Yeah, that is a bad idea. But it happens. Playing with the misprints as if they weren't misprinted (like realizing that Brachah has PRE instead of the POT she is reprinted with?) That happens all the time. Please explain what you are talking about. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Like, printing _good_ copies of formerly misprinted card, and exchanging them through WW or at tournaments. So that more "correct" copies would circulate. -- Bye, Daneel

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Same for Ur-Shulgi.

> Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >> Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around >> the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an >> additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain >> (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. This basic point seems to >> be the point of our contention. Yes, experienced players (and thus, most >> of those who post here) will tend to think that it is far more natural and >> logical that reprints are legal. But I'm allowing for those who wouldn't >> necessarily have been posting here yet. . . you know, the new people. > > Actually, I believe reprints being legal would benefit new people more > than others. I can just use an old Dreams or Alastor from my collection, > but newbies don't have the same resources to draw upon. They'll think, > if I have the card, and it's exactly the same as the old one, why can't > I use this new one? Thank you Rogar. This is a fine counterpoint. In general, you're right, of course. My point to this has been about the perceived unfairness of not including a card that you otherwise could have. And as a former newbie, if someone told me that reprints were legal, I'd *want* to know the legality of every possible card that I might be able to include. Because I'd be excited to try to use as many of the cards as I could. Makes it easier if you can simply use the cards, yes. My experience has been that it caused more confusion than not. > Sure, it's an additional step to check if a card is a reprint, and to > look up old card text. But the newbie doesn't have to. He can leave KMW > cards alone for 30 days, and it'll be just like it is today. Or he can > put in the effort and use them sooner as a reward. This is a fantastic incentive to learning cards. I'll ask my new players to see if this logic would be applicable to them or not. Ankur

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:53:39 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: | |> Just because you want to say something doesn't mean that you know what |> you're talking about. And you're a fine one to talk about 'reading' |> considering you routinely fail to read opposing posts thoroughly. | |> PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort |> to demonizing me, you've already lost. | | When it comes down to saying the same thing back, it's just words. Really. What are you babbling about? I suggest you read what's being said more often. Honestly, dude. |> Sorry to break it to you, but just because you can't understand my |> arguments or don't want to accept the basic truths they're founded on |> doesn't mean they're not real. Thanks for playing. Byebye! | | Arguments? What arguments? If I see any, I'll try to understand them, but The ones in the posts you don't bother reading. | until then, you would be better off looking up the word. Argument is I'd be better off not bothering to respond to someone who refuses to read what's being said and respond to it -- who prefers instead to just repeat "You make no points, you make no arguments, blah blah." But, silly me. |> |> Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because they've |> |> bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local |> |> playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the new |> |> card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is |> _NEW_ text. |> | |> | Most common example. We are talking about a new player who started to |> |> Correct, it IS the most common example, because, hey, it's the one |> you'll run into most often, right? That's why it's the "most common". |> And that's also why it's what you want to look at. | | Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you. The most common example is when an Which is it, dude? Above you call mine the "most common example". Now you are rapidly changing your mind? Gotta sort that out. | old timer is already in a playing group. Sure, there are n00bies and there Old-timers are not the problem. They can adjust to anything. If they choose not to read the tournament announcement and show up with illegal KMW cards, that is their own problem. n00bies are the problem; they are the ones who NEED the rules and information to be clear, logical, and consistent. So it only follows that the most common example must be a n00bie. | is also a fluctuation of them, but most old timers don't stop playing (the | last time we lost a bunch of our group was after CE came out). Other than | that, the majority is still people who are well into the stuff. THAT's | the most common example. That's the most common PLAYER. But it's not the most common example. |> | play within 1 month of a new set coming out AND wants to integrate |> |> The "1 month" is an arbitrary amount that you have inserted as fictional |> statistical support for your argument. No time limit need be specified; |> many players are still "new" after 6 months because they are only able |> to make it once or twice a month. It is quite reasonable to assume that |> these players have never seen Anarch Revolt, the old version. | | Not reasonable. You might've been better off quoting Heart of Darkness. But | Anarch Revolt is common enough to be known by the majority of the folks. Sorry dude, quite reasonable. All that has to happen is... someone won't play it. Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible examples in favor of your own distorted view of the world. Also see paragraph below, since I knew you would attack the strawman of Anarch Revolt instead of bothering to try to respond to the substance. | Not to mention the wonders of Internet communication. ANY n00bie who has Mandating that a n00bie has Internet access and cares to spend all that time looking it up. Not all n00bies do; not all know of the card lists; not all use the deck builder. In some cases, such as the deck builder, we might find that not even MOST do so. | been into the game for over a few weeks usually checks the card lists, the | checklists, uses deck builder or card filtering applications, etc. Their | scope of the game greatly exceeds the decks they build (or even the decks | they play against). No way, man. =) It's pretty clear you don't actually know what you're talking about here -- to expect a newbie to be so sophisticated and knowledgeable in "a few weeks" is ridiculous on the face of it. It seems obvious now that you've never actually taught a new player. Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible examples in favor of your own distorted view of the world. |> We should really make clear here that Anarch Revolt is just one of many |> cards that have changed function. Any of those new reprints could be in |> question instead of Anarch Revolt. It is simply a convenient example. | | If there is a source listing all changed cards, and a checklist available | for the set, etc, you can't be in the pitch dark. Not everyone knows where the source is. Not everyone has the checklist. ~ It is not reasonable to force newbies to go build from the checklist; see below example. Have you noticed how often I refer you to my previous post? Wouldn't it be easier to just read it the first time? |> | into the local playgroup BUT knows nothing about any previoius sets. |> |> Of course they want to integrate into the local playgroup. They were |> brought in by someone already in that playgroup. It's the most common |> (there's that word again) way that people MEET playgroups, you know? | | You rectify the example. It does not serve your purpose. Babble, babble, babble. |> There are plenty of starters available that are not KMW. Also plenty of |> boosters. Often these are sold in stores. Typically a player will buy |> a starter or two of a clan they like (I hear Black Hand had some |> clan-based starters), and then when a new set comes out, buy some |> boosters of THAT set. Perhaps they buy some boosters of a previous set, |> too, and just don't happen to pick up one that contains Anarch Revolt. | | Again, a player's knowledge of the cards is not limited to stuff they | actually play or have. Not even to stuff they play against. Many players You cannot assume that a player's knowledge of the cards is more expansive than what they own and what they've played against. To do so is poor design. | are interested in the game to a degree where they will be using deck | builder or card filter applications or browse the Internet for decks, | strategy discussions, messge boards, etc. Wanna say hi to the n00bies | reading this? ;) Far, far more noobies do not read r.g.t-c.j than do. Same with the White Wolf forums (partly because a bunch of illiterates post there). |> When you bother reading what I say, you probably understand it better. |> You should try it sometime. | | PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort to demonizing | me, you've already lost. Babble, babble, babble. I'm gonna call you "Brook." |> So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? |> |> a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." |> |> b) "OK, if any of your new KMW cards are actually old reprints, they |> will use the old text from the old version of the card. Yeah, I know |> you don't know the old stuff yet. Don't worry, you can look up which |> are reprints on the Internet, and then in a different spot, you can find |> the old text for each of those reprints, and THEN you can build your |> deck." |> |> Which do you think a newbie is more likely to be able to do? | | How about his one: | | c) "OK, I generally advise you against using a card from the new expansion | unless you are certain that the card is an unchanged reprint. Still, I | know you don't have too many cards, so if you check on WW's site, or ask | at our local board, we'll check for you which cards are NEW and which ones | are reprints. This way you can use your newly acquired reprinted cards you | just bought for $$." It sucks. a) is better, because c): - -- assumes noobie has internet access, NOT a given - -- forces noobie to spend time screwing around on websites looking up obscure references just to use his cards - -- assumes there is a local website (very few groups have one) - -- forces noobie to reveal what deck he's constructing by asking playgroup about specific cards (The noobie cares; experienced players know better than to care, but the only teacher here is experience) - -- is confusing and seems silly to the noobie; "Wait, I can only use SOME of my new cards?" Simpler, easier, and better just to refer to a). |> | a point. Or at least, you wrote something that can be loosely put |> | into the "opinion or fact" hat. Almost borders on meaningful |> | contribution. |> |> Boy, I guess that really busts up your statement above, huh? Of course, |> this is one of the few times you bothered to acknowledge it; I make a |> point of discussing the issue itself in almost every post. | | Even if that is the case, you could still improve the reception of your | points by trimming down the offensive s/n ratio. I'm not saying you | should, just pointing out something. Brook, I don't have to improve the reception of my posts. I don't really care how you guys receive them; if they piss you off, OH WELL. If you don't like the tone, OH WELL. I don't get paid by whether or not _X_ people on USENET agree with me or think I'm a nice guy; I get paid for doing a job that's totally unrelated to V:TES and USENET. When I send emails at THAT job, I bother to improve the reception of my emails, because it does matter. But here? Come on. Remind me again why you reading my post or not matters in the slightest? I already know you aren't going to back down off your opinion in public; the best I can do is make you think about things you haven't thought of before, and 3-6 months down the road when the topic comes up again, perhaps you will by then have thought about it some more. Your participation is not required for this. |> It (and its premise, 'Collecting the cards is part of the game') is the |> overriding one, Daneel. That's my point. There's no need to whack off |> rambling about all the rest of the issues; you have to knock down the |> above one before anything else even matters. | (misc. snipped) | | I'm currently focusing on the unaltered reprints. It is both poor design and confusing to have one rule for part of a set, and one rule for another part. There should only ever be one rule, with no exceptions written into it. This is one of those "basic truths" I referred to in my first post. An already-complex game should not be made more complex for the sake of a tiny benefit -- especially when the increase in complexity is non-trivial. Consider again the new player who plays with Anarch Revolt. In the excitement of his first tournament, is he likely to remember that AR doesn't do what it says, or is he going to try to play it as printed? This is of course even more likely to happen with an action/reaction card, since more of those get played per game than Masters, but I'm sure you can follow the basic logic. Remember, when you were a new player, you still had to read cards sometimes? Yeah. That's the key. | |> I guess I'm a bit more used to the "analysis" side than you, huh? | | I guess you guess wrong. But I guess your reply won't be leaving us No, ... no, I don't think I do. Certainly not after reading this post. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLwOptQZlu3o7QpERAv7iAKDfdrIz5gBvHITrgfZUbAeiZ/o56wCdEW6R AUucIf2RUlSXuwUpgLQI0O4= =tQMG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raille wrote: | "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:8cadnfC6qIa...@giganews.com... | |>It's a Collectible Card Game. |>Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. | | Sorry, wrong answer. | | Vtes is officially: | | Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM is a *trading card game* in which two or Synonymous, of course. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLwPmtQZlu3o7QpERAn8mAJ4+W+2YGVpPJaoU9EHz3Mo7xax+dgCgv30R Mm5eut1mJG4QFWnVKw6ipXI= =dDj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On 9 Mar 2005 04:44:49 -0800, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: | |> Uhh, what are you talking about? What is a bad idea? Publishing |> misprints? Yeah, that is a bad idea. But it happens. Playing with the |> misprints as if they weren't misprinted (like realizing that Brachah |> has PRE instead of the POT she is reprinted with?) That happens all the |> time. |> | Like, printing _good_ copies of formerly misprinted card, and exchanging | them through WW or at tournaments. So that more "correct" copies would | circulate. Just so you know, you're describing something that is nothing more than an additional expense, and it is one that cannot be linked, even tenuously, to a revenue stream. Allowing people to mail in copies and receive a correct reprint is an additional expense; someone must spend time doing this. Whimsically tacking on extra expenses is typically a rotten idea unless you are a company that is fat, happy, and sure to stay that way. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLwTLtQZlu3o7QpERAtYbAKCnFi0on5mBOYlJE3Qg0rO9cwNnsQCfUJL7 pExqQuZ1EDhhqTa3BuVUH6I= =t6nY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Daneel wrote: >Like, printing _good_ copies of formerly misprinted card, and exchanging > them through WW or at tournaments. So that more "correct" copies would > circulate. Well, yeah, that'd be nice and all, but A) kind of prohibitively expensive (although it certainly is possible to somehow reprint her in a starter deck somewhere, for example) and B) not really an issue in this discussion. But ok. I was just confused. -Peter

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:14:35 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Daneel wrote: > | On 9 Mar 2005 04:44:49 -0800, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > | > |> Uhh, what are you talking about? What is a bad idea? Publishing > |> misprints? Yeah, that is a bad idea. But it happens. Playing with the > |> misprints as if they weren't misprinted (like realizing that Brachah > |> has PRE instead of the POT she is reprinted with?) That happens all > the > |> time. > |> > | Like, printing _good_ copies of formerly misprinted card, and > exchanging > | them through WW or at tournaments. So that more "correct" copies would > | circulate. > > Just so you know, you're describing something that is nothing more than > an additional expense, and it is one that cannot be linked, even > tenuously, to a revenue stream. > > Allowing people to mail in copies and receive a correct reprint is an > additional expense; someone must spend time doing this. > > Whimsically tacking on extra expenses is typically a rotten idea unless > you are a company that is fat, happy, and sure to stay that way. I don't see too well into WW's bookkeeping. Since the game is somewhat blooming, they might have excess capacity for this sort of stuff. Then again, they might not. I brought it up because I wanted opinions (especially qualified ones, no offence). -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:09:45 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | When it comes down to saying the same thing back, it's just words. > Really. > > What are you babbling about? Ignorance is bliss. Sleep on, baby, and have sweet dreams. About you being a smart person. Or a well-respected person. Or some similar, likewise impossible thought that can be fulfilled by delving further into the shallow torpor you were granted instead of consciousness. > I'd be better off not bothering to respond to someone who refuses to > read what's being said and respond to it -- who prefers instead to just > repeat "You make no points, you make no arguments, blah blah." > > But, silly me. Well, one thing we agree on. ;) Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may have, drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a dog barking, a cow mooing or any other animal making its natural sound; it's just that you seem to expect others to understand you even when you aren't actually saying anything. > |> |> Except to the person who's never seen an Anarch Revolt because > they've > |> |> bought a few starters, only played a couple of times in their local > |> |> playgroup, and then picked up some shiny new KMW only to see the > new > |> |> card, with the new text, and no way for them to know that this is > |> _NEW_ text. > |> | > |> | Most common example. We are talking about a new player who started > to > |> > |> Correct, it IS the most common example, because, hey, it's the one > |> you'll run into most often, right? That's why it's the "most common". > |> And that's also why it's what you want to look at. > | > | Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you. The most common example is when > an > > Which is it, dude? Above you call mine the "most common example". Now > you are rapidly changing your mind? Gotta sort that out. That was sarcastic, in case you did not notice. I guess such fine print is lost on you... > | old timer is already in a playing group. Sure, there are n00bies and > there > > Old-timers are not the problem. They can adjust to anything. If they > choose not to read the tournament announcement and show up with illegal > KMW cards, that is their own problem. > > n00bies are the problem; they are the ones who NEED the rules and > information to be clear, logical, and consistent. So it only follows > that the most common example must be a n00bie. Okay, I'll get back to you on that. We're having an unsanctioned tournament this weekend. There are special house rules, etc., but the organizers made it clear that unaltered reprints can be used (though actual new KMW cards are not yet allowed). I'll have some first hand experience how much this confuses the newer players. > | is also a fluctuation of them, but most old timers don't stop playing > (the > | last time we lost a bunch of our group was after CE came out). Other > than > | that, the majority is still people who are well into the stuff. THAT's > | the most common example. > > That's the most common PLAYER. But it's not the most common example. Example of a possibly problematic situation. Yeah, we can agree on that. > |> | play within 1 month of a new set coming out AND wants to integrate > |> > |> The "1 month" is an arbitrary amount that you have inserted as > fictional > |> statistical support for your argument. No time limit need be > specified; > |> many players are still "new" after 6 months because they are only able > |> to make it once or twice a month. It is quite reasonable to assume > that > |> these players have never seen Anarch Revolt, the old version. > | > | Not reasonable. You might've been better off quoting Heart of > Darkness. But > | Anarch Revolt is common enough to be known by the majority of the > folks. > > Sorry dude, quite reasonable. All that has to happen is... someone > won't play it. Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible > examples in favor of your own distorted view of the world. Also see > paragraph below, since I knew you would attack the strawman of Anarch > Revolt instead of bothering to try to respond to the substance. Your point being... exactly what? I mean, really? With the caveat that everything is possible, let me get back to reality and examine what's likely. Cards that are never played are never played; cards that are frequently played are... frequently played. If the new player never ever saw a card, it is likely a result of said card seldom seeing play. Of course, there's always the caveat. If the newbie opened the card in hiw KMW boosters/decks, and wants to use it himself, oblivious that the text has been altered, we are at another issue (read on, nothing remains unaddressed). > | Not to mention the wonders of Internet communication. ANY n00bie who > has > > Mandating that a n00bie has Internet access and cares to spend all that > time looking it up. Not all n00bies do; not all know of the card lists; > not all use the deck builder. In some cases, such as the deck builder, > we might find that not even MOST do so. So we're talking about a new player who has no access to the internet. I think that's what Princes or tournament organizers can remedy. They probably have either access to the web-based medium, or they know what card is a reprint, and what card is NEW. > | been into the game for over a few weeks usually checks the card > lists, the > | checklists, uses deck builder or card filtering applications, etc. > Their > | scope of the game greatly exceeds the decks they build (or even the > decks > | they play against). > > No way, man. =) It's pretty clear you don't actually know what you're > talking about here -- to expect a newbie to be so sophisticated and > knowledgeable in "a few weeks" is ridiculous on the face of it. It > seems obvious now that you've never actually taught a new player. Dunno, when I got hooked on to VTES, I spent considerable time and effort to hunt down cards, strategies, etc. Even when I didn't have an Internet connection, I was always moving, looking for new stuff and absorbing it. I assumed that most people who are into the game are enthusiastic at first. > Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible examples in favor > of your own distorted view of the world. I could just reflect this sentence over to you, but whatever. You won't get it anyway. > |> We should really make clear here that Anarch Revolt is just one of > many > |> cards that have changed function. Any of those new reprints could be > in > |> question instead of Anarch Revolt. It is simply a convenient example. > | > | If there is a source listing all changed cards, and a checklist > available > | for the set, etc, you can't be in the pitch dark. > > Not everyone knows where the source is. Not everyone has the checklist. > ~ It is not reasonable to force newbies to go build from the checklist; > see below example. Have you noticed how often I refer you to my > previous post? Wouldn't it be easier to just read it the first time? You mean the one without any new points? This one is kind of like that one, come to think of it. You tend to repeat yourself. > | Again, a player's knowledge of the cards is not limited to stuff they > | actually play or have. Not even to stuff they play against. Many > players > > You cannot assume that a player's knowledge of the cards is more > expansive than what they own and what they've played against. To do so > is poor design. > > | are interested in the game to a degree where they will be using deck > | builder or card filter applications or browse the Internet for decks, > | strategy discussions, messge boards, etc. Wanna say hi to the n00bies > | reading this? ;) > > Far, far more noobies do not read r.g.t-c.j than do. Same with the > White Wolf forums (partly because a bunch of illiterates post there). Tell me about it. But at least it is moderated, so assholes like you don't show up. ;) > |> When you bother reading what I say, you probably understand it better. > |> You should try it sometime. > | > | PLEASE, dude, get it together. When you have to resort to demonizing > | me, you've already lost. > > Babble, babble, babble. I'm gonna call you "Brook." Are you resorting to namecalling now? ;)) > |> So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? > |> > |> a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." > > | How about his one: > | > | c) "OK, I generally advise you against using a card from the new > expansion > | unless you are certain that the card is an unchanged reprint. Still, I > | know you don't have too many cards, so if you check on WW's site, or > ask > | at our local board, we'll check for you which cards are NEW and which > ones > | are reprints. This way you can use your newly acquired reprinted > cards you > | just bought for $$." > > It sucks. a) is better, because c): > > - -- assumes noobie has internet access, NOT a given Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could easily inform him of c). > - -- forces noobie to spend time screwing around on websites looking up > obscure references just to use his cards No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. > - -- assumes there is a local website (very few groups have one) Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could easily inform him of c). > - -- forces noobie to reveal what deck he's constructing by asking > playgroup about specific cards (The noobie cares; experienced players > know better than to care, but the only teacher here is experience) Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could easily inform him of c) without the noobie needing to tell what cards he or she is interested about. > - -- is confusing and seems silly to the noobie; "Wait, I can only use > SOME of my new cards?" No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. > Simpler, easier, and better just to refer to a). No. Noobies who have few cards might be interested in an option to use some of their newly obtained cards even if it means finding an authentic source to double-check their status. They are free not to do so, of course. Old timers are likely to have enough of the original copies of fresh reprints anyway (with the notable exception of some former rares). > | Even if that is the case, you could still improve the reception of your > | points by trimming down the offensive s/n ratio. I'm not saying you > | should, just pointing out something. > > Brook, I don't have to improve the reception of my posts. I don't Of course you don't have to. Did I say that? Can you even read? C'mon. > But here? Come on. Remind me again why you reading my post or not > matters in the slightest? I already know you aren't going to back down > off your opinion in public; the best I can do is make you think about > things you haven't thought of before, and 3-6 months down the road when > the topic comes up again, perhaps you will by then have thought about it > some more. Publicly? What are you talking about? This is a fucking newsgroup. Get a grip of yourself. I'm hidden behind an alias, don't you remember? ;) > Your participation is not required for this. Yet you always pass the ball onto my field. Interesting to observe your motives... I'm betting you are insecure and feel guilt. So you go about humiliating yourself in this forum, by forcing me to refute every weak pseudo-point you might think you made. Your behaviour borders on masochistic; you seem to enjoy being proven wrong. You should see a shrink. Or change jobs and start doing weather forecasts. > |> It (and its premise, 'Collecting the cards is part of the game') is > the > |> overriding one, Daneel. That's my point. There's no need to whack > off > |> rambling about all the rest of the issues; you have to knock down the > |> above one before anything else even matters. > | > (misc. snipped) > | > | I'm currently focusing on the unaltered reprints. > > It is both poor design and confusing to have one rule for part of a set, > and one rule for another part. There should only ever be one rule, with > no exceptions written into it. In most cases that's either impossible or unwieldy. I generally agree with your point, but there are instances when the benefit of introducing a new rule outweighs the hindrance of having yet another rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system. The question in this case is whether allowing unaltered reprints from a new set to be used before the set becomes tournament legal is beneficial to the players or not. I still think it would be beneficial on multiple levels. > This is one of those "basic truths" I referred to in my first post. An > already-complex game should not be made more complex for the sake of a > tiny benefit -- especially when the increase in complexity is > non-trivial. Our opinions probably differ regarding the extent of the benefit. > Consider again the new player who plays with Anarch Revolt. In the > excitement of his first tournament, is he likely to remember that AR > doesn't do what it says, or is he going to try to play it as printed? > This is of course even more likely to happen with an action/reaction > card, since more of those get played per game than Masters, but I'm sure > you can follow the basic logic. If reprinted cards that were changed are not yet usable, this problem won't come up. > Remember, when you were a new player, you still had to read cards > sometimes? Yeah. That's the key. I still do read cards sometimes. In fact, there was one particular DS:U card I never knew existed until a few months ago. So what? > |> I guess I'm a bit more used to the "analysis" side than you, huh? > | > | I guess you guess wrong. But I guess your reply won't be leaving us > > No, ... no, I don't think I do. Certainly not after reading this post. I wouldn't call your activity of finding certain key phrases and replying to them with prepared counterphrases without even realizing what the issue is, "reading". I realize some are born unlucky; I pity you for being one, but your handicap won't soften my heart. As long as you insist on pursuing this mockery of communication, I have no choice but to show you to your place. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:09:45 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: | |> What are you babbling about? | | Ignorance is bliss. Sleep on, baby, and have sweet dreams. About you being | a smart person. Or a well-respected person. Or some similar, likewise | impossible thought that can be fulfilled by delving further into the | shallow torpor you were granted instead of consciousness. Score! +1 to me. That makes it 79-3 in my favor. Concede yet? |> I'd be better off not bothering to respond to someone who refuses to |> read what's being said and respond to it -- who prefers instead to just |> repeat "You make no points, you make no arguments, blah blah." |> |> But, silly me. | | Well, one thing we agree on. ;) | | Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may have, | drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a dog cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. | barking, a cow mooing or any other animal making its natural sound; | it's just that you seem to expect others to understand you even when | you aren't actually saying anything. I repeat: Everyone else manages to understand just fine. Perhaps you are actually the one who should take the blinders off, huh? Overfocusing on your need to Slay the Dragon is probably what's causing you to miss this stuff. That, or you just don't have much real-world experience dealing with people. |> |> | Most common example. We are talking about a new player who |> started to |> |> |> |> Correct, it IS the most common example, because, hey, it's the one |> |> you'll run into most often, right? That's why it's the "most common". |> |> And that's also why it's what you want to look at. |> | |> | Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you. The most common example is |> when an |> |> Which is it, dude? Above you call mine the "most common example". Now |> you are rapidly changing your mind? Gotta sort that out. | | That was sarcastic, in case you did not notice. I guess such fine print | is lost on you... Sarcasm requires tone. Three words is a statement. |> Old-timers are not the problem. They can adjust to anything. If they |> choose not to read the tournament announcement and show up with illegal |> KMW cards, that is their own problem. |> |> n00bies are the problem; they are the ones who NEED the rules and |> information to be clear, logical, and consistent. So it only follows |> that the most common example must be a n00bie. | | Okay, I'll get back to you on that. We're having an unsanctioned | tournament this weekend. There are special house rules, etc., but the | organizers made it clear that unaltered reprints can be used (though | actual new KMW cards are not yet allowed). I'll have some first hand | experience how much this confuses the newer players. Good start. Now repeat this experiment across 20+ playgroups in multiple countries, and let me know what you find. Also, good evasion; you neatly sidestepped the point, which is that we should focus on the new players and the rules' effect on them. Or perhaps you have implicitly accepted the point, in which case I retract the "evasion". |> | Not reasonable. You might've been better off quoting Heart of |> Darkness. But |> | Anarch Revolt is common enough to be known by the majority of the |> folks. |> |> Sorry dude, quite reasonable. All that has to happen is... someone |> won't play it. Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible |> examples in favor of your own distorted view of the world. Also see |> paragraph below, since I knew you would attack the strawman of Anarch |> Revolt instead of bothering to try to respond to the substance. | | Your point being... exactly what? Your arbitrary claim that "a new player having not seen Anarch Revolt before is not reasonable". The claim is just plain wrong and indicates a lack of experience; I've seen new players ask to read MANY of the most commonly used cards, including AR, Anarch Troublemaker, Art Scam, and countless others. It actually surprised me how LITTLE of the game a new player really sees or understands, after awhile. | I mean, really? | | With the caveat that everything is possible, let me get back to reality | and examine what's likely. Cards that are never played are never played; | cards that are frequently played are... frequently played. If the new Cards that are frequently played in tournaments are frequently played in tournaments. Cards that are frequently played locally are frequently played locally. The sets of cards above are far from identical. The distinction is critical. The Sabbat 2-cap Hungry Coyote deck, for example, never sees play locally, but it shows up constantly in tournaments. Why do you think that is? Does this help you understand why a newbie might not have seen Anarch Revolt? I know I personally do NOT play vicious killer decks when a new player is around; I have no interest in him being the first prey of an Anarch Revolt deck, never getting to play his game, and wondering why he came. I am sure others do the same. |> | Not to mention the wonders of Internet communication. ANY n00bie who |> has |> |> Mandating that a n00bie has Internet access and cares to spend all that |> time looking it up. Not all n00bies do; not all know of the card lists; |> not all use the deck builder. In some cases, such as the deck builder, |> we might find that not even MOST do so. | | So we're talking about a new player who has no access to the internet. I | think that's what Princes or tournament organizers can remedy. They Assuming they even know that the new player is about to use KMW cards in his deck, which (see below) they won't necessarily know since the new player is likely to be super-secretive about his deck tech. |> No way, man. =) It's pretty clear you don't actually know what you're |> talking about here -- to expect a newbie to be so sophisticated and |> knowledgeable in "a few weeks" is ridiculous on the face of it. It |> seems obvious now that you've never actually taught a new player. | | Dunno, when I got hooked on to VTES, I spent considerable time and effort | to hunt down cards, strategies, etc. Even when I didn't have an Internet | connection, I was always moving, looking for new stuff and absorbing it. | I assumed that most people who are into the game are enthusiastic at | first. That's you; most other people are not as obsessive as you are. Even other CCGers, and we all tend to be an obsessive bunch. You chose to give yourself an advantage over the typical new player, and that is a good thing; but assuming that all new players will lean towards the information-hoovering extreme is a careless assumption. |> Not everyone knows where the source is. Not everyone has the checklist. |> ~ It is not reasonable to force newbies to go build from the checklist; |> see below example. Have you noticed how often I refer you to my |> previous post? Wouldn't it be easier to just read it the first time? | | You mean the one without any new points? This one is kind of like that one, | come to think of it. You tend to repeat yourself. Perhaps it's because you didn't get it the first time. |> Far, far more noobies do not read r.g.t-c.j than do. Same with the |> White Wolf forums (partly because a bunch of illiterates post there). | | Tell me about it. But at least it is moderated, so assholes like you don't | show up. ;) I don't waste time on webforums; the oversimplicity of the interface means that the dregs of Internet society can always be found there, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the entire forum typically renders the time spent on the forum better spent elsewhere -- say, repotting some plants. Plus, the plants can spell better. |> |> So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? |> |> |> |> a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." |> |> | c) "OK, I generally advise you against using a card from the new |> expansion |> | unless you are certain that the card is an unchanged reprint. Still, I |> | know you don't have too many cards, so if you check on WW's site, |> or ask |> | at our local board, we'll check for you which cards are NEW and which |> ones |> | are reprints. This way you can use your newly acquired reprinted |> cards you |> | just bought for $$." |> |> It sucks. a) is better, because c): |> |> - -- assumes noobie has internet access, NOT a given | | Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could | easily inform him of c). So the Prince will let the noobie come over and use the internet access from the Prince's house? |> - -- forces noobie to spend time screwing around on websites looking up |> obscure references just to use his cards | | No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. An arbitrary restriction that makes no sense to the newbie; the difference between making it hard to use and making it unusable is negligible from his perspective. People, in general, prefer to simply be barred from doing something than be given a complex set of restrictions under which they can do part of the something they want to do. |> - -- assumes there is a local website (very few groups have one) | | Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could | easily inform him of c). Addressed above. |> - -- forces noobie to reveal what deck he's constructing by asking |> playgroup about specific cards (The noobie cares; experienced players |> know better than to care, but the only teacher here is experience) | | Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could | easily inform him of c) without the noobie needing to tell what cards | he or she is interested about. Addressed above. |> - -- is confusing and seems silly to the noobie; "Wait, I can only use |> SOME of my new cards?" | | No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. Addressed above. |> Simpler, easier, and better just to refer to a). | | No. Noobies who have few cards might be interested in an option to use One sentence with no exceptions is always simpler than a paragraph with several exceptions. | some of their newly obtained cards even if it means finding an authentic | source to double-check their status. They are free not to do so, of | course. Old timers are likely to have enough of the original copies of | fresh reprints anyway (with the notable exception of some former rares). Alternately, old-timers could just bring those original copies to the tournament, and if a newbie has somehow failed to understand a), provide temporary swap-out for whatever they were able. |> | Even if that is the case, you could still improve the reception of your |> | points by trimming down the offensive s/n ratio. I'm not saying you |> | should, just pointing out something. |> |> Brook, I don't have to improve the reception of my posts. I don't | | Of course you don't have to. Did I say that? Can you even read? C'mon. Glad we agree that I don't have to. You don't have to say it; you spend so much time trying to convince me of it that it's sort of, you know, IMPLIED. But I just thought I'd remind you of that since you seem to always be expecting me to moderate my tone. |> But here? Come on. Remind me again why you reading my post or not |> matters in the slightest? I already know you aren't going to back down |> off your opinion in public; the best I can do is make you think about |> things you haven't thought of before, and 3-6 months down the road when |> the topic comes up again, perhaps you will by then have thought about it |> some more. | | Publicly? What are you talking about? This is a fucking newsgroup. Get a | grip of yourself. I'm hidden behind an alias, don't you remember? ;) It's interesting to determine the definition of "public". Everyone here knows who you are; while I don't remember your real name, that's not necessary in this case. It's sufficiently public for the purposes of the above paragraph, and your evasive handwaving above demonstrates that you also know this, even though you might not like to admit it ;) |> Your participation is not required for this. | | Yet you always pass the ball onto my field. Interesting to observe your | motives... I'm betting you are insecure and feel guilt. So you go about | humiliating yourself in this forum, by forcing me to refute every weak | pseudo-point you might think you made. Your behaviour borders on | masochistic; you seem to enjoy being proven wrong. You should see a | shrink. Or change jobs and start doing weather forecasts. Score! +1 for me: Standard Internet Tactic #84, "Accuse your opponent of needing psychological help". That's funny stuff, man. =) Moving on... |> | I'm currently focusing on the unaltered reprints. |> |> It is both poor design and confusing to have one rule for part of a set, |> and one rule for another part. There should only ever be one rule, with |> no exceptions written into it. | | In most cases that's either impossible or unwieldy. And in this case, too. Not impossible; but very unwieldy. | I generally agree with your point, but there are instances when the benefit | of introducing a new rule outweighs the hindrance of having yet another | rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system. Dude, you wrote this paragraph. Read it. Understand that your rule is not just another rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system; it's a COMPLEX rule. You restated my point in your own words. |> Consider again the new player who plays with Anarch Revolt. In the |> excitement of his first tournament, is he likely to remember that AR |> doesn't do what it says, or is he going to try to play it as printed? |> This is of course even more likely to happen with an action/reaction |> card, since more of those get played per game than Masters, but I'm sure |> you can follow the basic logic. | | If reprinted cards that were changed are not yet usable, this problem | won't come up. If KMW cards aren't legal until 30 days after release, the problem won't come up either. QED. |> Remember, when you were a new player, you still had to read cards |> sometimes? Yeah. That's the key. | | I still do read cards sometimes. In fact, there was one particular | DS:U card I never knew existed until a few months ago. So what? Think it through. | I wouldn't call your activity of finding certain key phrases and replying | to them with prepared counterphrases without even realizing what the | issue is, "reading". I realize some are born unlucky; I pity you for | being one, but your handicap won't soften my heart. As long as you | insist on pursuing this mockery of communication, I have no choice but | to show you to your place. Score! +1 to me! 81-3 in my favor; ain't there a Mercy Rule in this game? You know, I'm almost convinced that you really believe the above paragraph =) But randomly firing shots in the dark won't score you anything. I suggest thinking the issues through fully, from a perspective that ISN'T based between your ears. Hey, isn't that a novel idea? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLz1ttQZlu3o7QpERAgseAKDt41AxthM6THOw18EmOmNGdOmm/wCgi+Ot IUB2ieKs0z4xY19nM6lU4Lc= =vH1Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:14:35 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: | |> Daneel wrote: |> | Like, printing _good_ copies of formerly misprinted card, and |> exchanging |> | them through WW or at tournaments. So that more "correct" copies would |> | circulate. |> |> Just so you know, you're describing something that is nothing more than |> an additional expense, and it is one that cannot be linked, even |> tenuously, to a revenue stream. |> |> Allowing people to mail in copies and receive a correct reprint is an |> additional expense; someone must spend time doing this. |> |> Whimsically tacking on extra expenses is typically a rotten idea unless |> you are a company that is fat, happy, and sure to stay that way. | | I don't see too well into WW's bookkeeping. Since the game is somewhat | blooming, they might have excess capacity for this sort of stuff. Then | again, they might not. I brought it up because I wanted opinions It doesn't require a copy of their ledgers in front of you -- just a bit of common sense. Does White Wolf look like a company that is fat, happy, and certain to stay that way? Or does it look like a company that's doing well for itself in a niche market, but is always going to need to stay on its toes lest its competitors eat it alive? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCLz4HtQZlu3o7QpERAtuzAKCP/fTZT0NSIqmJxP7bzfucwFzRQACeIKaO WsJ2GsfZfFZJQFJiOl/WRTU= =b2l8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hey Daneel, if you're looking for a less-abrasive look at similar points of the opposition, see my exchange with Fred on this same thread. Replace Fred with you, Derek with me, and now you've got a conversation that ain't fraught with anger and viciousness. And here's someone who's piping in definitively -- I've taught lots of newbies. And I can assure you from repeated efforts that it's just infinitely less complicated to follow a single one-stop rule that says, "Hey, yeah! Look at that symbol up there! That's a not-so-good symbol for the next 30 days!" <gets patted on the head by the local prince> It's just that easy. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in messagenews:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >>> So if they have to understand that, why not make it absolute rather >>> than require yet another hoop to jump through? >> >> Please notice, there's two ways to look at an "inconsistency" here. >> You can focus on the expansion symbol on the card or you can look at >> whether the card's a reprint or a new card. You insist on suggesting >> the focus is on the expansion symbol is the natural thing, you're going >> to come to the conclusion that it's more complex to divide up whole sets >> into the legal and the illegal. > > Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around > the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an > additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain > (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. Insist on it for any reason you want, just notice that it's not the only way to view the situation, that other people "naturally" tend to view it otherwise, and that an argument which asserts that ITS way of seeing reality is the simplest one has a problem when real life evidence tends to suggest otherwise. > This basic point seems to > be the point of our contention. Yes, experienced players (and thus, most > of those who post here) will tend to think that it is far more natural and > logical that reprints are legal. But I'm allowing for those who wouldn't > necessarily have been posting here yet. . . you know, the new people. Of course new people. That's who I'm talking about, too. Who else would have shown up at the NE Qualifier with illegal decks? > And besides that, how much more simple can it get than to look at card X. > Without needing additional information, you *know* whether or not it's > legal. Done. Finished. No more discussion. No exceptions. No conditions. Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like an expansion symbol. >>But many players seem to think otherwise, in my observation. The look > > Unless your observation includes a large demographic of players (read new) > that are not currently represented in this argument, you're bound to come > to a skewed conclusion. Fine - then let's make no assumptions about it either way - in which case, I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that way and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the simplest way. That and the fact that the DCI uses the system and doesn't seem to have a problem with it. > Hell, let me say this: I > personally would be in favor of reprints being legal immediately. > (Avoiding of course the sticky point of cards which have changed function > in the newer printing.) But I recognize that it's better for the game, for > the community, and for new players, not to add more complications. V:TES > has a high learning curve. Takes weeks to learn the mechanics, and weeks > more to follow the actions which are taken in a game. Some people after 10 > years of playing are still learning table dynamics. And yes, for new > players, complications can include trying to find out if a card is a > reprint. Gee, I had no clue this reason was so 'important'. Truth is, I'm just responding to your argument. Lest we lose perspective here, I don't think it's that important a rule either way, as I said at the onset. But obviously, I certainly don't think it's 'better' for the game for the reason another poster brought up - people traveling to a tournament under a misunderstanding that reprinted new copies shouldn't be a problem in their decks and discovering at the last minute that it's not true. Clearly, that happens, and I fail to see what is so 'important' about requiring them to rework their decks at the last minute somehow (or worse, applying penalties to them if discovered during play). >>> No, that's not true. To play a card, one does not necessarily need to >>> know that a former version existed. >> >> But to assume it's legal before the date, he does. > > There's that step we're talking about. The point where a player must know > more to execute the more logical rule that you're talking about. . . . You > know, I have players show up with invalid crypts for the first few > weeks/months they play the game. And though I tell them, I also tell them > that it's ok. It's because they simply *don't know*. All right, I don't see the communication glitch here but we're clearly talking past each other. If a player knows a previous version of the card is legal, he CAN use it. If he's never seen it before but knows the reprint rule, he won't TRY to use it - unless he takes the time to establish that it had been previously printed. I fail to see any problems with any of this. >>>> I have no idea what's nightmarish about it. It's pretty simple. >>> >>> Simple, sure. Time-consuming, though. >> >> Why the heck is it "time-consuming"?!? Look, it's REALLY simple: the >> player has either seen the card before or he hasn't. If he hasn't seen >> it, he should assume it's illegal. He only has to go further than that >> if he's curious about it for some reason. > > What if he's seen it before, but it's a promo card, which is also not > legal yet? Huh?!? That's scratching. If a new player doesn't know a promo card is not legal to play then he might play the promo card itself illegally - so this is not a new problem. Answer to this by either system: player must know the legal date to play all promo cards. > What if he's seen it in someone else's box and isn't sure what > set it was from? What if he's seen it in a dream with pink bunnies telling > him that it's legal? Why not just have a one-stop check-it-here > check-it-now solution? I mean, seriously? What's the rush? Pretty much scratching on all of these. What if he sees a Return to Innocence or Madness of the Bard in another player's box and has no idea they're banned. The rush is so not ban peoples' decks that don't need to be banned. >> Unless you mean, players are going to look through all the precons and >> start wondering if they can use any of these cards before March 23rd. >> They can *ALREADY* do that! Only difference is that now, they'd have to >> look through the precon, go find out if the card already exists in a >> previous printing, AND have to go out and score an old version of a >> card. It's actually MORE complicated NOW. > > No they don't. They look at the cards in the precon, and say, "Man, look > at that conveniently-located set symbol here in the top right-hand corner > of these cards. Gosh, can't play that for 30 days." DONE. You're the one > making this complicated. This is just ignoring a response and ducking back into the safety of your original argument. And I will say, I've seen plenty of the reverse: attempting to make the reprint-allowed proposal seem a zillion times more complex than it is so I'm unrepentent about pointing out what's equally "complex" under the existing system. The truth is, it's not all that complicated either way - but coming to the grips with that point is causing a lot more angst and frenetic hand-waving than it ought to. >> Sorry. Don't mean to get impatient but this really isn't rocket >> science. > > You're right. And I'm wondering how you're missing the point here. Well, maybe it's because it's not as good of a point as you think? >>> Assuming they're going to do some checking, yes. But remember who we're >>> talking about: people who bring illegal decks to tournaments. Now, how >>> do you get these people to bring valid decks? Make things simple. >> >> Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the DCI >> is having problems with Magic? This isn't exactly an untried rule, you >> know. (My perception, for what it's worth, is no. They've never had >> much of a problem about it that I noticed.) > > Magic is a different animal. The players are different. The game is > simpler. Well, gee then - if it's such complex rule as you claim, how does that work with the 'simpler' game. That seems a bit of incongruous explaination. > Reprints are block-limited. Oh for crying out loud - this has been true since the beginning. Since Type 1 was THE tournament game. No one had trouble with it then and "block limiting" has nothing to do with the issue. > Most people who play Magic have played Magic before at some point. Sorry, this is just a weird point. I'd say "Most people who play Jyhad have play Jyhad before at some point." I don't know where you're going with this. > Magic doesn't have as complex card > interactions as V:TES (or at least didn't when I was playing), which means > that slightly different card texts have less of an impact than say, in > V:TES. I don't quibble over any of this. Sure, it's a different. But it works. I think you're just scratching for points to evade just accepting that the reprints-allowed rule works fine. It doesn't cause a ton of problems like you're suggesting it might. I wish we could just agree on that rather than quibbling about an issue that to me, seems in way in doubt. >>> Too many assumptions Fred. No way new players will want to know if it's >>> from a previous edition. At least, not necessarily. >> >> Then they won't suspect it's legal and won't use it, will they? How is >> THIS a problem?!? > > So, wouldn't that newbie feel like it's a bit unfair that he could have > used card X if he had just *known* it was legal? No, not really. Sorry (...again), this seems a bit silly, conjecturing 'resentment'. Most normal people just slap their foreheads and say, "HEY! I could have had a V8!" (Or a Dreams of the Sphinx...) If new-player- seething-resentment over cards they could have played but didn't know were legal, I'd advocate shooting them with tranquilizer guns. Aren't we already using them when new players discover an OLD card they'd never seen before and go berserk? >>> I don't know how better to explain it. You snipped my point about the >>> nuances argument you made applying to my case. . . . I don't know how >>> else to demonstrate that according to our metric, simple is best >> >> Agreed. It's the definition of "simple" that I maintain needs work. >> When real people tend to assume the opposite of the existing rule, >> that's a good indication that it's not as "simple" as it could be. > > Again, you're not lookinng at the people who might be confused by this > rule. You're only seeing experienced players. Again, no, I'm talking about new players. I don't know why you think I'm talking about experienced players. Experienced players know the rule either way and don't bring illegal decks to tournaments. > Right back at you Freddie boy. :) Check. :-) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the > determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. > Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like an > expansion symbol. It takes N card-checks to identify all not-yet-legal cards in your deck if you merely have to check the expansion symbol (N being the number of cards in your deck). It takes N card-checks and N database-lookups to verify legality if you have to check card name. The database is also not universally available (a checklist doesn't come in the starters). > >>But many players seem to think otherwise, in my observation. The look > > > > Unless your observation includes a large demographic of players (read new) > > that are not currently represented in this argument, you're bound to come > > to a skewed conclusion. > > Fine - then let's make no assumptions about it either way - in which case, > I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the > simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that way > and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the simplest way. > > That and the fact that the DCI uses the system and doesn't seem to have > a problem with it. Simplicity and intuition need not coincide. In fact, some people will naturally assume that all Blood Dolls are legal, and assume that no KMW cards (including reprints) are legal, and not realize that the assumptions are contradictory until it's pointed out to them. [ quoted text not captured ] I agree that penalties should be minimal to nonexistant for such a minor rules violation, yes. I'd also be fine with giving TDs the authority to alter the rules (in advance) to allow reprints for the sake of everyone's fun. That said, the default rule should be the simpler case. [ quoted text not captured ] It's not a zillion times more complex, merely more complex. Which is enough reason to put up with 30 days of irritation, IMO. > >> Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the DCI > >> is having problems with Magic? This isn't exactly an untried rule, you > >> know. (My perception, for what it's worth, is no. They've never had > >> much of a problem about it that I noticed.) > > > > Magic is a different animal. The players are different. The game is > > simpler. > > Well, gee then - if it's such complex rule as you claim, how does that > work with the 'simpler' game. That seems a bit of incongruous > explaination. Not if you believe that the negative effects of complexity grow out of proportion with complexity itself. A relatively simple game can survive a few complex rules additions/changes. Once it acheives a certain complexity, adding more rules of similar complexity adds a great deal more frustration than the first few did. Of course, you don't have to believe this. Even believing it, you don't have to believe that VTES has reached such a point. That doesn't invalidate the argument, though. John

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the >> determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. >> Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like >> an expansion symbol. > > It takes N card-checks to identify all not-yet-legal cards in your deck > if you merely have to check the expansion symbol (N being the number of > cards in your deck). It takes N card-checks and N database-lookups to > verify legality if you have to check card name. Yea, but in practice, the database lookups are trivial: "I have knowledge that this card has been used in tournaments in the past, therefore, I know it's legal." Difference between reality and theorizing. You make this sound a lot more difficult than it really is. > The database is also > not universally available (a checklist doesn't come in the starters). Same issue for a million other deckbuilding questions. So what? > Simplicity and intuition need not coincide. In fact, some people will > naturally assume that all Blood Dolls are legal, and assume that no KMW > cards (including reprints) are legal, and not realize that the > assumptions are contradictory until it's pointed out to them. Agreed. The issue is, ultimately, what is likely to cause the least problem? Between this and the scenario where guys are showing up with decks they don't know are illegal, which problem causes more trouble? > I agree that penalties should be minimal to nonexistant for such a > minor rules violation, yes. I'd also be fine with giving TDs the > authority to alter the rules (in advance) to allow reprints for the > sake of everyone's fun. That said, the default rule should be the > simpler case. I guess I'm not sure what the point of the halfway measure is. This kind of makes it sounds like the "default rule" in the above case accomplishes something, which I don't believe it does. If it does accomplishes anything, then why waive it some of the time? For me, I guess going halfway like that is the least attractive option unless someone can point out a benefit. I do agree with the part about penalties being minimal to nonexistant. >> And I will say, I've seen plenty of the reverse: >> attempting to make the reprint-allowed proposal seem a zillion times >> more complex than it is so I'm unrepentent about pointing out what's >> equally "complex" under the existing system. > > It's not a zillion times more complex, merely more complex. Apparently, you haven't read through some of the responses. You'd think allowing reprints was tantamount to requiring players to check the Federal Income Tax Code to hear some of the screams. But, again, I don't consider it more complex at all, given that it means that ALL the cards of a given name are either legal or illegal. That's something the current system doesn't offer. Just my opinion, I'll grant. But I think it's as valid as the other one. >> >> Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the >> >> DCI is having problems with Magic? >> > >> > Magic is a different animal. The players are different. The game is >> > simpler. >> >> Well, gee then - if it's such complex rule as you claim, how does >> that work with the 'simpler' game. That seems a bit of incongruous >> explaination. > > Not if you believe that the negative effects of complexity grow out of > proportion with complexity itself. A relatively simple game can survive > a few complex rules additions/changes. Once it acheives a certain > complexity, adding more rules of similar complexity adds a great deal > more frustration than the first few did. What, you mean, "Magic is simpler - therefore, it can AFFORD a complex recent expansion card use rule."? And Jyhad cannot, presumedly. Interesting answer. > Of course, you don't have to believe this. Even believing it, you don't > have to believe that VTES has reached such a point. That doesn't > invalidate the argument, though. No, I suppose not. It's not important. It seems clear to me that if the rule were all that bad, the DCI wouldn't use it. This also reflects the fact that I played tournament Magic for the first several years and hung out in the Magic groups a long time and the rule was never deemed controversial or difficult that I recall. That doesn't prove it's better, I'll grant. But it sure makes mincemeat of the notion that it would be a difficult rule to live with, as some are suggesting. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand your point regarding simplicity. I value simplicity. It is important, but I think there may be more important things. What do you think of the following: In a perfect world the rule on unaltered reprints would be taken loosely. The rule would exist, especially for the player's own good (not to accidentally confuse reprints with new cards, for which the rule is highly logical). Players who came to tournaments with unaltered reprints from a set that is not tournament legal yet would be tolerated without question, and noone would mind other players playing unaltered reprints, as they are the same cards they already know, even if they have a different expansion symbol. We don't, however, live in a perfect world. So when people show up with a KMW Blur or Blood Doll in their decks, some folks will actually complain about that. They will see to the judge having to find proxies for the reprinted cards. How does replacing a KMW Blur with a BH Blur actually make ANY difference? This seems to be beyond pointlessness. Of course, I see the general point of the rule, and I see the general point of keeping rules if they exist, but this particular example is just beyond me. Even if a rule is generally needed, and keeping rules is generally good, doing something stupid is still doing something stupid. Aside, there's also the issue with new players needing the reprinted copies. I'm not sure about this, but I would think that the new players would especially value if they could use their freshly obtained cards. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:16:13 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | Ignorance is bliss. Sleep on, baby, and have sweet dreams. About you > being > | a smart person. Or a well-respected person. Or some similar, likewise > | impossible thought that can be fulfilled by delving further into the > | shallow torpor you were granted instead of consciousness. > > Score! +1 to me. That makes it 79-3 in my favor. You seem to be watching another channel. In this game you just scored your third strike. One to go and you're out. > Concede yet? I do not accept. You will have to show me at least something before I allow you to withdraw. So far you have shown me less than nothing. > |> But, silly me. > | > | Well, one thing we agree on. ;) > | > | Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may have, > | drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a dog > > cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. Are you trying to bring in racist (sexist?) remarks? I don't think color has anything to do with points. You hiding behind some convenient form of viccissitude just shows how desperate you are. > | barking, a cow mooing or any other animal making its natural sound; > | it's just that you seem to expect others to understand you even when > | you aren't actually saying anything. > > I repeat: Everyone else manages to understand just fine. Perhaps you > are actually the one who should take the blinders off, huh? I am trying, but you won't let me. Now I understand that you got used to them, but life has, how to put, a bit more perspective withouth them. Try to be more cooperative, and maybe you'll learn something in the meantime. > Overfocusing on your need to Slay the Dragon is probably what's causing > you to miss this stuff. That, or you just don't have much real-world > experience dealing with people. What? Where? Who? ;) > Sarcasm requires tone. Or context, given how this medium is lacking intonation and metacommunication (except for stuff like smileys). > Three words is a statement. In context. > | Okay, I'll get back to you on that. We're having an unsanctioned > | tournament this weekend. There are special house rules, etc., but the > | organizers made it clear that unaltered reprints can be used (though > | actual new KMW cards are not yet allowed). I'll have some first hand > | experience how much this confuses the newer players. > > Good start. Now repeat this experiment across 20+ playgroups in > multiple countries, and let me know what you find. The fact that you are already trying to defend betrays that your expectations concerning any possible problems that might arise match mine. Which in turn questions whether your whole reasoning is just a house of cards. > Also, good evasion; you neatly sidestepped the point, which is that we > should focus on the new players and the rules' effect on them. Or > perhaps you have implicitly accepted the point, in which case I retract > the "evasion". I am cool with assuming for the sake of discussion that the most problematic area are the new players. (Who, by the way, suffer most from not being able to use reprinted copies.) > |> Sorry dude, quite reasonable. All that has to happen is... someone > |> won't play it. Moving on since you are intent on ignoring plausible > |> examples in favor of your own distorted view of the world. Also see > |> paragraph below, since I knew you would attack the strawman of Anarch > |> Revolt instead of bothering to try to respond to the substance. > | > | Your point being... exactly what? > > Your arbitrary claim that "a new player having not seen Anarch Revolt > before is not reasonable". The claim is just plain wrong and indicates > a lack of experience; I've seen new players ask to read MANY of the most > commonly used cards, including AR, Anarch Troublemaker, Art Scam, and > countless others. It actually surprised me how LITTLE of the game a new > player really sees or understands, after awhile. So, what are you trying to prove? If there is a checklist and a change log, like for KMW, then the new player does not need to remember how each card works. KMW card not on the preview site checklist or change log? Play it. > | I mean, really? > | > | With the caveat that everything is possible, let me get back to reality > | and examine what's likely. Cards that are never played are never > played; > | cards that are frequently played are... frequently played. If the new > > Cards that are frequently played in tournaments are frequently played in > tournaments. > > Cards that are frequently played locally are frequently played locally. > > The sets of cards above are far from identical. The distinction is > critical. The Sabbat 2-cap Hungry Coyote deck, for example, never sees > play locally, but it shows up constantly in tournaments. Why do you > think that is? Does this help you understand why a newbie might not > have seen Anarch Revolt? > > I know I personally do NOT play vicious killer decks when a new player > is around; I have no interest in him being the first prey of an Anarch > Revolt deck, never getting to play his game, and wondering why he came. > > I am sure others do the same. We seem to have arrived at the eternal "fun play" vs. "tournament play" issue. Darkish swamp with a bunch of Will O' the Wisps. Recommend donning protective gear before entry. > |> | Not to mention the wonders of Internet communication. ANY n00bie who > |> has > |> > |> Mandating that a n00bie has Internet access and cares to spend all > that > |> time looking it up. Not all n00bies do; not all know of the card > lists; > |> not all use the deck builder. In some cases, such as the deck > builder, > |> we might find that not even MOST do so. > | > | So we're talking about a new player who has no access to the internet. > I > | think that's what Princes or tournament organizers can remedy. They > > Assuming they even know that the new player is about to use KMW cards in > his deck, which (see below) they won't necessarily know since the new > player is likely to be super-secretive about his deck tech. Dunno about that, it's been a while. But we can probably assume that the new player will need to be reminded that new cards are not tournament legal yet (if he's that green, he won't even know that). There will probably be other pieces of information that need to be communicated. Like, tournament rules, etc. If we fulfil all of these, the rest seems not-that-hard. > | Dunno, when I got hooked on to VTES, I spent considerable time and > effort > | to hunt down cards, strategies, etc. Even when I didn't have an > Internet > | connection, I was always moving, looking for new stuff and absorbing > it. > | I assumed that most people who are into the game are enthusiastic at > | first. > > That's you; most other people are not as obsessive as you are. Even > other CCGers, and we all tend to be an obsessive bunch. > > You chose to give yourself an advantage over the typical new player, and > that is a good thing; but assuming that all new players will lean > towards the information-hoovering extreme is a careless assumption. I would say that you just might be right, but then again, in your peculiar mind it could set off ripples that would likely have unforeseeable consequences in the near future. ;) > |> Not everyone knows where the source is. Not everyone has the > checklist. > |> ~ It is not reasonable to force newbies to go build from the > checklist; > |> see below example. Have you noticed how often I refer you to my > |> previous post? Wouldn't it be easier to just read it the first time? > | > | You mean the one without any new points? This one is kind of like that > one, > | come to think of it. You tend to repeat yourself. > > Perhaps it's because you didn't get it the first time. Or perhaps there was just nothing to get? > |> Far, far more noobies do not read r.g.t-c.j than do. Same with the > |> White Wolf forums (partly because a bunch of illiterates post there). > | > | Tell me about it. But at least it is moderated, so assholes like you > don't > | show up. ;) > > I don't waste time on webforums; the oversimplicity of the interface > means that the dregs of Internet society can always be found there, and > the signal-to-noise ratio of the entire forum typically renders the time > spent on the forum better spent elsewhere -- say, repotting some plants. > > Plus, the plants can spell better. ;) > |> |> So, which is easier to say and explain to a newbie? > |> |> > |> |> a) "No cards with the KMW symbol are legal until after 30 days." > |> > |> | c) "OK, I generally advise you against using a card from the new > |> expansion > |> | unless you are certain that the card is an unchanged reprint. > Still, I > |> | know you don't have too many cards, so if you check on WW's site, > |> or ask > |> | at our local board, we'll check for you which cards are NEW and > which > |> ones > |> | are reprints. This way you can use your newly acquired reprinted > |> cards you > |> | just bought for $$." > |> > |> It sucks. a) is better, because c): > |> > |> - -- assumes noobie has internet access, NOT a given > | > | Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could > | easily inform him of c). > > So the Prince will let the noobie come over and use the internet access > from the Prince's house? Not necessarily. ;) I was thinking more along the lines of the Prince providing access to a checklist of cards that can (or can't) be used. If there is some sort of forum (electronic or mundane), like a weekly gaming night, or a sponsoring shop, players could access these checklists there. > |> - -- forces noobie to spend time screwing around on websites looking > up > |> obscure references just to use his cards > | > | No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. > > An arbitrary restriction that makes no sense to the newbie; the > difference between making it hard to use and making it unusable is > negligible from his perspective. > > People, in general, prefer to simply be barred from doing something than > be given a complex set of restrictions under which they can do part of > the something they want to do. But there is the other side of the coin. People complaining about other people using a KMW Blur and insisting that it be replaced with another, say, a BH one. Making the option part of the rule, or simply recognized and tolerated, seems like a worthwhile effort. The problem is, as long as the rule is there, people have the right to enforce it (or demand its enforcement) even if it is completely pointless in the given situation. Now the rule is there because of the situations in which it is not pointless, but due to its simplicity it is extended over to situations that open up the possibility of such pointlessness. > |> Simpler, easier, and better just to refer to a). > | > | No. Noobies who have few cards might be interested in an option to use > > One sentence with no exceptions is always simpler than a paragraph with > several exceptions. Indeed, simple rules are simpler, and more complex ones are more complex. > | some of their newly obtained cards even if it means finding an > authentic > | source to double-check their status. They are free not to do so, of > | course. Old timers are likely to have enough of the original copies of > | fresh reprints anyway (with the notable exception of some former > rares). > > Alternately, old-timers could just bring those original copies to the > tournament, and if a newbie has somehow failed to understand a), provide > temporary swap-out for whatever they were able. Which would in turn be utterly pointless. > |> | Even if that is the case, you could still improve the reception of > your > |> | points by trimming down the offensive s/n ratio. I'm not saying you > |> | should, just pointing out something. > |> > |> Brook, I don't have to improve the reception of my posts. I don't > | > | Of course you don't have to. Did I say that? Can you even read? C'mon. > > Glad we agree that I don't have to. You don't have to say it; you spend > so much time trying to convince me of it that it's sort of, you know, > IMPLIED. But I just thought I'd remind you of that since you seem to > always be expecting me to moderate my tone. All this crap about implications would imply that you are capable of handling the concept. Which would in turn imply that you don't just stick to refuting semantics or hairsplitting expressions, but you actually communicate (part of which is understanding what you read). Since the implications are clearly lacking, the conclusion is that you are simply avoiding the fact that (yet again) you were caught red handed with an ill-cloaked verbal juggle. > | Publicly? What are you talking about? This is a fucking newsgroup. Get > a > | grip of yourself. I'm hidden behind an alias, don't you remember? ;) > > It's interesting to determine the definition of "public". Everyone here > knows who you are; while I don't remember your real name, that's not > necessary in this case. It's sufficiently public for the purposes of > the above paragraph, and your evasive handwaving above demonstrates that > you also know this, even though you might not like to admit it ;) Babble, babble. We know where you live. ;) > |> Your participation is not required for this. > | > | Yet you always pass the ball onto my field. Interesting to observe your > | motives... I'm betting you are insecure and feel guilt. So you go > about > | humiliating yourself in this forum, by forcing me to refute every weak > | pseudo-point you might think you made. Your behaviour borders on > | masochistic; you seem to enjoy being proven wrong. You should see a > | shrink. Or change jobs and start doing weather forecasts. > > Score! +1 for me: Standard Internet Tactic #84, "Accuse your opponent > of needing psychological help". You seem to be obsessed with scoring. Sure you don't need a sexual therapist? ;P > That's funny stuff, man. =) Moving on... From the creaks it seems that your mental wheelchair is getting rusty. Maybe you haven't used it too much lately... > | I generally agree with your point, but there are instances when the > benefit > | of introducing a new rule outweighs the hindrance of having yet > another > | rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system. > > Dude, you wrote this paragraph. Read it. Understand that your rule is > not just another rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system; it's a > COMPLEX rule. > > You restated my point in your own words. Well, healthy flames aside, the pros and cons of the current (and proposed) system are probably clear to the both of us. The only difference seems to be the benefit vs. cost balance we seem to expect from changing the rule. (I'd be happy with an unwritten change, by the way, if people would just let the subject drop and not complain about playing obviously unaltered reprints.) > |> Consider again the new player who plays with Anarch Revolt. In the > |> excitement of his first tournament, is he likely to remember that AR > |> doesn't do what it says, or is he going to try to play it as printed? > |> This is of course even more likely to happen with an action/reaction > |> card, since more of those get played per game than Masters, but I'm > sure > |> you can follow the basic logic. > | > | If reprinted cards that were changed are not yet usable, this problem > | won't come up. > > If KMW cards aren't legal until 30 days after release, the problem won't > come up either. QED. ...but others will. Next? > |> Remember, when you were a new player, you still had to read cards > |> sometimes? Yeah. That's the key. > | > | I still do read cards sometimes. In fact, there was one particular > | DS:U card I never knew existed until a few months ago. So what? > > Think it through. What? That you don't need to be a newbie to read cards, and not be aware of things? So does that imply to you that no player should be treated harshly, because there is no clear cut-off point between being a newbie or a veteran? > | I wouldn't call your activity of finding certain key phrases and > replying > | to them with prepared counterphrases without even realizing what the > | issue is, "reading". I realize some are born unlucky; I pity you for > | being one, but your handicap won't soften my heart. As long as you > | insist on pursuing this mockery of communication, I have no choice but > | to show you to your place. > > Score! +1 to me! Man, you should really hang out some more. > 81-3 in my favor; ain't there a Mercy Rule in this game? Sorry, no dice. You'll have to earn my mercy. You could start by learning to read. > You know, I'm almost convinced that you really believe the above > paragraph =) But randomly firing shots in the dark won't score you Again, this scoring. You know, it shouldn't be me and all, but I kind of advise you to get a girlfriend? Or boyfriend, as you wish, just drop the subconscious references and get back to some nice and clean flaming? > anything. I suggest thinking the issues through fully, from a > perspective that ISN'T based between your ears. Hey, isn't that a novel > idea? I guess the only valid perspective would be from between YOUR ears. But, I would feel claustrophobic in such a small, dark, confined space, so I'll let the opportunity pass, thank you. -- Bye, Daneel

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:B5KdncqgVvN...@giganews.com... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Raille wrote: > | "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > | news:8cadnfC6qIa...@giganews.com... > | > |>It's a Collectible Card Game. > |>Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. > | > | Sorry, wrong answer. > | > | Vtes is officially: > | > | Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM is a *trading card game* in which two or > > Synonymous, of course. > Obiously you need a Thesaurus. Trade: To exchange Collect: Gather, or assemble In industry terms it boils down to collectable games being purposefully restricted and tradeable games a more broad and unlimited production run. Raille

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:16:13 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: |>Daneel wrote: |> |> | Ignorance is bliss. Sleep on, baby, and have sweet dreams. About you |> | a smart person. Or a well-respected person. Or some similar, likewise |> | impossible thought that can be fulfilled by delving further into the |> | shallow torpor you were granted instead of consciousness. |> |> Score! +1 to me. That makes it 79-3 in my favor. | | You seem to be watching another channel. In this game you just scored your | third strike. One to go and you're out. SCORE! +1 to me. 82-3. |> Concede yet? | | I do not accept. You will have to show me at least something before I allow | you to withdraw. So far you have shown me less than nothing. SCORE! +2 to me. 84-3. |> | Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may have, |> | drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a dog |> |> cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. | | Are you trying to bring in racist (sexist?) remarks? I don't think color | has anything to do with points. You hiding behind some convenient form | of viccissitude just shows how desperate you are. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE! Suggest googling the phrase before you make a fool of yourself any more. 90-3, and I claim a variant of Godwin's Law. =) |> I repeat: Everyone else manages to understand just fine. Perhaps you |> are actually the one who should take the blinders off, huh? | | I am trying, but you won't let me. Now I understand that you got used to | them, but life has, how to put, a bit more perspective withouth them. | Try to be more cooperative, and maybe you'll learn something in the | meantime. SCORE! 91-3. You know, the whole "I know you are but what am I?" defense went out with Pee-Wee Herman, back in the 80's. =) Sadly, this is where I am somewhat sad that this medium lacks "intonation and metacommunication". I'm actually laughing out loud as I read these, and I'm afraid text doesn't properly represent this. =) |> Sarcasm requires tone. | | Or context, given how this medium is lacking intonation and | metacommunication (except for stuff like smileys). Three words doesn't contain context. |> Three words is a statement. | | In context. With only three words, there isn't any. |> | Okay, I'll get back to you on that. We're having an unsanctioned |> | tournament this weekend. There are special house rules, etc., but the |> | organizers made it clear that unaltered reprints can be used (though |> | actual new KMW cards are not yet allowed). I'll have some first hand |> | experience how much this confuses the newer players. |> |> Good start. Now repeat this experiment across 20+ playgroups in |> multiple countries, and let me know what you find. | | The fact that you are already trying to defend betrays that your Wrong. I am pointing out that anecdotal evidence from a single unsanctioned tournament, with special house rules, is insufficient to draw ANY conclusions from, whether they support my position or yours. A person more versed in logic and practical application of statistics would understand this. Didn't you claim to be educated once? | expectations concerning any possible problems that might arise match | mine. Which in turn questions whether your whole reasoning is just a | house of cards. As opposed to yours, which is just a bunch of hot air? |> Your arbitrary claim that "a new player having not seen Anarch Revolt |> before is not reasonable". The claim is just plain wrong and indicates |> a lack of experience; I've seen new players ask to read MANY of the most |> commonly used cards, including AR, Anarch Troublemaker, Art Scam, and |> countless others. It actually surprised me how LITTLE of the game a new |> player really sees or understands, after awhile. | | So, what are you trying to prove? If there is a checklist and a change log, For one, I forced you back on the issues, instead of your strawman about how "new players would have seen Anarch Revolt". =) | like for KMW, then the new player does not need to remember how each card | works. KMW card not on the preview site checklist or change log? Play it. So the new player is going to sit there with his checklist and change log in hand while he's playing the game, because his AR doesn't work the way it says on the card and he needs to remember that some of his KMW cards do the old stuff? Speaks for itself, dude =) |> I know I personally do NOT play vicious killer decks when a new player |> is around; I have no interest in him being the first prey of an Anarch |> Revolt deck, never getting to play his game, and wondering why he came. |> |> I am sure others do the same. | | We seem to have arrived at the eternal "fun play" vs. "tournament play" | issue. Darkish swamp with a bunch of Will O' the Wisps. Recommend | donning | protective gear before entry. I demonstrate that it is quite plausable that a new player hasn't seen Anarch Revolt before, and provide multiple reasons. Daneel responds with vague handwaving and ghost stories. Issue is resolved in my favor; moving on. (I'd like to give credit to LSJ for the phrase 'vague handwaving'; I find it most applicable in this case, so I stole it.) |> | So we're talking about a new player who has no access to the |> internet. I |> | think that's what Princes or tournament organizers can remedy. They |> |> Assuming they even know that the new player is about to use KMW cards in |> his deck, which (see below) they won't necessarily know since the new |> player is likely to be super-secretive about his deck tech. | | Dunno about that, it's been a while. But we can probably assume that the Trust me. They're over-paranoid. They believe that deck lists are the key to the game, as opposed to the actual play. (Most) Experienced players know better. | new player will need to be reminded that new cards are not tournament | legal yet (if he's that green, he won't even know that). There will Sure. You put that sentence (because it's only a sentence) in the tournament announcement. "NOTE: KINDRED MOST WANTED CARDS NOT LEGAL UNTIL (DATE)!" Organizers passing it on verbally only have to remember and repeat one sentence. Problem solved. | probably be other pieces of information that need to be communicated. | Like, tournament rules, etc. If we fulfil all of these, the rest seems | not-that-hard. The more complicated you make anything, the more likely it is something will go wrong. It's a principle that applies to all parts of life. |> |> Not everyone knows where the source is. Not everyone has the |> checklist. |> |> ~ It is not reasonable to force newbies to go build from the |> checklist; |> |> see below example. Have you noticed how often I refer you to my |> |> previous post? Wouldn't it be easier to just read it the first time? |> | |> | You mean the one without any new points? This one is kind of like that |> | come to think of it. You tend to repeat yourself. |> |> Perhaps it's because you didn't get it the first time. | | Or perhaps there was just nothing to get? Well, we know that's not true. Moving on. |> |> It sucks. a) is better, because c): |> |> |> |> - -- assumes noobie has internet access, NOT a given |> | |> | Not necessarily; the same source that informs the noobie of a) could |> | easily inform him of c). |> |> So the Prince will let the noobie come over and use the internet access |> from the Prince's house? | | Not necessarily. ;) I was thinking more along the lines of the Prince | providing access to a checklist of cards that can (or can't) be used. Dude, we can't get Princes to get off their butts and do the BASIC stuff, like send in tournament reports on time and complete. You're assuming that the Princes are going to do WHAT? And the newbies are going to want to do WHAT? I think we're getting down to the meat of the matter here. It's all well and good to set up a complex solution to a perceived problem, but when it comes down to it, people are human and have trouble getting complex things right... especially the further from the source you get. cf. the old game "Chinese Whispers", where you send a simple sentence whispered ONLY ONCE from person to person around a ring and see what it sounds like after 10-15 repetitions. | If there is some sort of forum (electronic or mundane), like a weekly | gaming night, or a sponsoring shop, players could access these | checklists there. Unfortunately, I think most people tend to build their decks on very short notice, so the weekly gaming night isn't as good an idea as it sounds. The checklist above is still sort of funny, for the reasons above. |> |> - -- forces noobie to spend time screwing around on websites |> looking up |> |> obscure references just to use his cards |> | |> | No. Noobie is free to use only cards from former expansions. |> |> An arbitrary restriction that makes no sense to the newbie; the |> difference between making it hard to use and making it unusable is |> negligible from his perspective. |> |> People, in general, prefer to simply be barred from doing something than |> be given a complex set of restrictions under which they can do part of |> the something they want to do. | | But there is the other side of the coin. People complaining about other | people using a KMW Blur and insisting that it be replaced with another, | say, a BH one. Making the option part of the rule, or simply recognized | and tolerated, seems like a worthwhile effort. Well, people are entitled to have the rules enforced, even if they're dicks about it. The current rule is "NO KMW CARDS ARE LEGAL", and therefore it must be enforced, even for cards like Blur. People who are going to be dicks about the rules are going to find a way to be dicks, no matter what. The most correct solution, of course, is for the judge in this case to say "Shut up and play"... but there IS that pesky letter of the rules to be followed. Fortunately it's not hard to find a Blur to swap out. Making the rule simple makes it easier for people to follow the rule. People who aren't able to understand a simple rule aren't going to successfully get a complex one right -- those people are unsavable. Why bother? | pointless in the given situation. Now the rule is there because of the | situations in which it is not pointless, but due to its simplicity it | is extended over to situations that open up the possibility of such | pointlessness. But it's still easy to adhere to and communicate, which reduces the possibility of such pointlessness ever occurring. Corollary to above: Princes who don't properly communicate a simple rule are going to fail to comunicate a complex rule just as stellarly. |> Alternately, old-timers could just bring those original copies to the |> tournament, and if a newbie has somehow failed to understand a), provide |> temporary swap-out for whatever they were able. | | Which would in turn be utterly pointless. Sometimes it's the old-timers who think, rather than the Prince. |> |> Brook, I don't have to improve the reception of my posts. I don't |> | Of course you don't have to. Did I say that? Can you even read? C'mon. |> |> Glad we agree that I don't have to. You don't have to say it; you spend |> so much time trying to convince me of it that it's sort of, you know, |> IMPLIED. But I just thought I'd remind you of that since you seem to |> always be expecting me to moderate my tone. | | All this crap about implications would imply that you are capable of | handling the concept. Which would in turn imply that you don't just | stick to refuting semantics or hairsplitting expressions, but you actually | communicate (part of which is understanding what you read). Since the | implications are clearly lacking, the conclusion is that you are simply | avoiding the fact that (yet again) you were caught red handed with an | ill-cloaked verbal juggle. Babble, babble, babble. Do I get to start keeping score on this part, too? =) Perhaps we can come up with a new term: Vague accusationwaving. Or wait; accusatory strawman! =) Above, you try to avoid the fact that I'm giving you a resounding bitchslap by putting words in my mouth; claiming that "I DIDNT SAY YOU HAD TO IMPROVE". Total distraction, of course, and simple cover for another slay-the-dragon rant. In any case, your above paragraph is just more humor. Moving on. | You seem to be obsessed with scoring. Sure you don't need a sexual | therapist? ;P Doing just fine, thanks. =) |> | I generally agree with your point, but there are instances when the |> benefit of introducing a new rule outweighs the hindrance of having yet |> another rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system. |> |> Dude, you wrote this paragraph. Read it. Understand that your rule is |> not just another rule in a fundamentally rules-heavy system; it's a |> COMPLEX rule. |> |> You restated my point in your own words. | | Well, healthy flames aside, the pros and cons of the current (and | proposed) system are probably clear to the both of us. The only | difference seems to be the benefit vs. cost balance we seem to | expect from changing the rule. (I'd be happy with an unwritten change, | by the way, if people would just let the subject drop and not complain | about playing obviously unaltered reprints.) No, dude. People are going to be dicks. It's the nature of people; they get dicky, and they get self-righteous. The most rule-adhering people are typically the ones who are the biggest dicks, honestly; they get all pissy because THEY spent effort to not use their KMW Blur, and why should anyone else be allowed? So people aren't gonna let the subject drop. Everything has to be crystal clear and in stone. And to do that, it has to be simple, because otherwise we get decades of rules lawyers applying semantics over and over again, in an effort to somehow get an exception. Some judges are capable of handling the lawyers. Some aren't, and to save already-overworked judges some time, it's best to just make the rule simple. |> | If reprinted cards that were changed are not yet usable, this problem |> | won't come up. |> |> If KMW cards aren't legal until 30 days after release, the problem won't |> come up either. QED. | | ....but others will. Next? But the others are less complicated and easier to handle. Dodging the original point though, which is: It ain't broken. |> |> Remember, when you were a new player, you still had to read cards |> |> sometimes? Yeah. That's the key. |> | |> | I still do read cards sometimes. In fact, there was one particular |> | DS:U card I never knew existed until a few months ago. So what? |> |> Think it through. | | What? That you don't need to be a newbie to read cards, and not be aware | of things? So does that imply to you that no player should be treated | harshly, because there is no clear cut-off point between being a newbie | or a veteran? No. That if experienced players still need to read cards, expecting a newbie to remember that a card in his hand doesn't do what it says is starting to get out of line. Expecting them to learn NEWER text is bad enough; expecting them to remember that the OLDER text applies? Way across the line. |> | I wouldn't call your activity of finding certain key phrases and |> | to them with prepared counterphrases without even realizing what the |> | issue is, "reading". I realize some are born unlucky; I pity you for |> | being one, but your handicap won't soften my heart. As long as you |> | insist on pursuing this mockery of communication, I have no choice but |> | to show you to your place. |> |> Score! +1 to me! | | Man, you should really hang out some more. Yeah, maybe if we hung out you could "show me to my place". ;) BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Or maybe you'd invite me to yours?? That's scary though. Sorry, I have to decline; I like women and I'm taken. |> 81-3 in my favor; ain't there a Mercy Rule in this game? | | Sorry, no dice. You'll have to earn my mercy. You could start by | learning to read. SCORE! See above about the Pee-Wee Herman defense. |> You know, I'm almost convinced that you really believe the above |> paragraph =) But randomly firing shots in the dark won't score you | | Again, this scoring. You know, it shouldn't be me and all, but I kind of | advise you to get a girlfriend? Or boyfriend, as you wish, just drop the | subconscious references and get back to some nice and clean flaming? Got one, thanks. =) Why bother flaming? You're being funny enough for the both of us. In case you hadn't noticed, by the way, I don't ever take ad hominem paragraphs seriously -- I realize what they really represent. |> anything. I suggest thinking the issues through fully, from a |> perspective that ISN'T based between your ears. Hey, isn't that a novel |> idea? | | I guess the only valid perspective would be from between YOUR ears. But, | I would feel claustrophobic in such a small, dark, confined space, so | I'll let the opportunity pass, thank you. Can't help it, man. My brain takes up a lot of room in there, doesn't leave a lot of room for other things. =) - -- Derek insert coin here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCMFbrtQZlu3o7QpERAseSAJ9/hEVt0W1dUbO7ps1KxsDp+s79WwCdHOI6 BWwqNM7QUneHzHCYPBkn7ZM= =lbdP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> I understand your point regarding simplicity. I value simplicity. It is > important, but I think there may be more important things. What do you > think of the following: > > In a perfect world the rule on unaltered reprints would be taken loosely. > The rule would exist, especially for the player's own good (not to > accidentally confuse reprints with new cards, for which the rule is > highly logical). Players who came to tournaments with unaltered > reprints from a set that is not tournament legal yet would be tolerated > without question, and noone would mind other players playing unaltered > reprints, as they are the same cards they already know, even if they > have a different expansion symbol. Well, then it's not really much of a rule is it? It's more like the reprint rule, but it's more annoying. Now, you have the situation that someone could think, "Aw, no one will complain about that. . . " and then they will be angry when they get called out on it. And yes, they'll get angry, even if they're at fault. > We don't, however, live in a perfect world. So when people show up with > a KMW Blur or Blood Doll in their decks, some folks will actually > complain about that. They will see to the judge having to find proxies > for the reprinted cards. How does replacing a KMW Blur with a BH Blur > actually make ANY difference? This seems to be beyond pointlessness. They complain because there's a rule about that. And despite anything else, players are generally going to make an effort to be tolerant about that. The transcript of what happened wherever it did served to prove that point. I was in a tournament where my predator tried to play Channel 10 and it wasn't legal. I pointed it out, and the local prince virtually ripped the card from the offending person's deck and flung it across the room. :) See, we handled it and it was fine. But I could have made a point about it. And I would be correct in doing so. I personally don't see a difference between a reprint and a new card, because if someone says to me that cards of type X aren't legal, they ain't legal. Now, I wouldn't be averse to allowing reprints, but simplicity is to be valued above the case where folks don't follow rules. Sounds like you're advocating changing the rules so that people would follow them. In that case, I think that 30 pool is clearly not fair. It unnecessarily hinders the newbie, since they don't know how to manage it yet. I move that we increase the pool each Methuselah receives to 51. I'd follow that rule. > Of course, I see the general point of the rule, and I see the general > point of keeping rules if they exist, but this particular example is > just beyond me. Even if a rule is generally needed, and keeping rules > is generally good, doing something stupid is still doing something > stupid. I don't think the rule is stupid. And you haven't shown me that. > Aside, there's also the issue with new players needing the reprinted > copies. I'm not sure about this, but I would think that the new players > would especially value if they could use their freshly obtained cards. That's *if* they show up with invalid cards. Which is potentially less likely if you tell them that cards from set X aren't legal. Of course, some people will associate with the DCI thought process, and so will find this rule unintuitive. Doesn't mean that V:TES should conform though. As far as the new players wanting to use their shiny cards. . . eh. They'll always want to use their shiny new cards. Experienced players would like to use them too -- all those esteems and undue influences and berettas and suppressing fires. . . . What's the difference? Simple. It's a goal. Ankur

We have three possible solutions. What happens in a tournament in the 30 days.: The existing rule. A player has a new Wake of Evening Freshness. Its illegal. The player is pissed. Reprints are allowed. A player has a Forced March, because he thinks it is a reprinted crad. "There really was a Forced card, i am sure." Its illegal. He is pissed. All new cards and changes are legal immediately. A player has bulid a deck around the old "Anarch Revolt", because he has no opportunity to learn the new rule. His playing is illegal. He is pissed. There is no solution, that can make all players happy, who dont look exactly, whats legal and whats illegal in a torunament. In all the cases, the existing solution is the simplest and clearest.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raille wrote: | "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:B5KdncqgVvN...@giganews.com... |>Raille wrote: |>| "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message |>| news:8cadnfC6qIa...@giganews.com... |>| |>|>It's a Collectible Card Game. |>|>Part of the Game is Collecting the Cards. |>| |>| Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM is a *trading card game* in which two or |> |>Synonymous, of course. | | Obiously you need a Thesaurus. Or, the capacity to make the distinction between "in theory" and "in practice". | Trade: To exchange | Collect: Gather, or assemble | | In industry terms it boils down to collectable games being purposefully | restricted and tradeable games | a more broad and unlimited production run. Rare cards; evidence of a purposeful restriction. No such thing as an unlimited run. Jyhad, V:TES, Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts, and Sabbat are all out of print. Some rare cards will never be reprinted. They can call it what they like, but there's no effective difference between a TCG and a CCG. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCMFgPtQZlu3o7QpERAh3dAJ0cRZEwLsEEpo1wFtPF3e6DxuL6ygCfVHaf YRbXy0MO/lpERndvPMjP9Bc= =ivEw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>> Please notice, there's two ways to look at an "inconsistency" here. >>> You can focus on the expansion symbol on the card or you can look at >>> whether the card's a reprint or a new card. You insist on suggesting >>> the focus is on the expansion symbol is the natural thing, you're >>> going to come to the conclusion that it's more complex to divide up >>> whole sets into the legal and the illegal. >> >> Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around >> the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an >> additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain >> (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. > > Insist on it for any reason you want, just notice that it's not the only > way to view the situation, that other people "naturally" tend to view it > otherwise, and that an argument which asserts that ITS way of seeing > reality is the simplest one has a problem when real life evidence tends > to suggest otherwise. I'd say the same to you. I simply happen to think that the sort of new player I'm talking about is more frequent than the sort you're talking about. And I've given at least some basis for the fact that certain types of new players (those who are excited) can cause a lot of unnecessary and additional work for someone who's trying to promote them to play, because they'll ask repeated "is this a reprint" questions. And no, as a promoter, I won't feel like it's going to make a good impression to send them off searching for websites if I've got the answer in my brain. >> This basic point seems to be the point of our contention. Yes, >> experienced players (and thus, most of those who post here) will tend >> to think that it is far more natural and logical that reprints are >> legal. But I'm allowing for those who wouldn't necessarily have been >> posting here yet. . . you know, the new people. > > Of course new people. That's who I'm talking about, too. Who else would > have shown up at the NE Qualifier with illegal decks? Newer people than experienced, but veterans (perhaps) comparatively to the folks I'm talking about. Two different mentalities. > Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the > determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. > Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like an > expansion symbol. Name in and of itself brings out other different sticky points, which we're avoiding, remember? (Such as changed text of cards, new misprint, etc.) I'm arguing these points from a less strong position than I could in a strict sense, and it's still not an altogether unreasonable position. >> Unless your observation includes a large demographic of players (read >> new) that are not currently represented in this argument, you're bound >> to come to a skewed conclusion. > > Fine - then let's make no assumptions about it either way - in which case, Well, you couldn't really see the point I'm making but regardless. . . > I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the > simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that way > and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the simplest way. Ok, Fred. If we don't consider the definition of "simplest" from some person or demographic perspective, this argument is meaningless. Your point (at the start of the thread) was, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it's much simpler to allow reprints as a scheme". No conditions, no other caveats. I'm responding to that. It falls to me then to present to you three things: 1) A counter-example 2) Reason to believe that the counter-example is not arbitrarily constructed 3) Other consequences which may be as-of-yet unconsidered in said counter-example I've done these 3 things. > That and the fact that the DCI uses the system and doesn't seem to have > a problem with it. The mentality of one game's players don't necessarily move to another's. I'll freely admit that the later points I tried to make about Magic were, well, dumb, but at least the previous sentence is correct. I could say any number of extremely offensive statements about the stereotype of Magic players, but let's not get into that. Let's just say, "they're different folk". > Gee, I had no clue this reason was so 'important'. Truth is, I'm just > responding to your argument. Lest we lose perspective here, I don't > think it's that important a rule either way, as I said at the onset. Nor do I. But both of our arguments stem from considering certain types of people, namely those who have basically just started playing. From *that* perspective, taking a game that has a high learning curve and (at least for some players, which I argue is a majority) adding complexity to it is a bad thing. > true. Clearly, that happens, and I fail to see what is so 'important' > about requiring them to rework their decks at the last minute somehow > (or worse, applying penalties to them if discovered during play). Takes time, puts them on the spot, dunno really. On this I agree with you. Not sure why it's a big deal. We seem like pretty nice folks all around. >> There's that step we're talking about. The point where a player must >> know more to execute the more logical rule that you're talking about. . >> . . You know, I have players show up with invalid crypts for the first >> few weeks/months they play the game. And though I tell them, I also >> tell them that it's ok. It's because they simply *don't know*. > > All right, I don't see the communication glitch here but we're clearly > talking past each other. If a player knows a previous version of the > card is legal, he CAN use it. If he's never seen it before but knows > the reprint rule, he won't TRY to use it - unless he takes the time to > establish that it had been previously printed. I fail to see any > problems with any of this. K, Fred. Let's take the case of a player who's excited about playing this game, as most new folks are. Now, how's he going to try to find out if it's a reprint? Don't you think that his first line of attack is to ask the person who taught him how to play? Seems like a simple question with a simple answer, right? But then, when he/she says that this card is/isn't legal, it might spark other questions of the same sort. That's one way. Another is that he goes and looks online or at lists or whatever. This takes time away in the early times from actual playing or deckbuilding. I have argued that this is not optimal from the perspective of drawing a new player. Yet another is that he resigns himself to saying that he's never seen the card, so it must be new, and therefore, he can't play it. I have *never* had this personality of new player, ever. And I have a few under my belt. This is the basic problem with your premise. The above 3 paragraphs are one point. The second point is this: a DCI-conditioned individual will associate more with the reprint rule than the expansion symbol rule, and thus, consider it simpler. But even if they conceptually recognize its simplicity as you've indicated above, in practice, they'll end up doing more "work" as outlined above. >> What if he's seen it before, but it's a promo card, which is also not >> legal yet? > > Huh?!? That's scratching. If a new player doesn't know a promo card is > not legal to play then he might play the promo card itself illegally - > so this is not a new problem. Answer to this by either system: player > must know the legal date to play all promo cards. Nope, not scratching. My point is whether he'd play the version of the card from the new set. In order to know, though, you're requiring him to know more information, as we've talked about before. Remember, said new player may not know or have realized that the card in question was actually a promo card. He may not have the card either; just have seen it. Echo comes to mind as a card that was released close to its set release. Don't remember if she was legal when KMW was released, but I don't think so. >> What if he's seen it in someone else's box and isn't sure what set it >> was from? What if he's seen it in a dream with pink bunnies telling him >> that it's legal? Why not just have a one-stop check-it-here >> check-it-now solution? I mean, seriously? What's the rush? > > Pretty much scratching on all of these. What if he sees a Return to > Innocence or Madness of the Bard in another player's box and has no idea > they're banned. That's a good point. Thanks. The point here is that the what-ifs can cause additional confusion and could lead to more illegal decks at tournaments. >>> Unless you mean, players are going to look through all the precons and >>> start wondering if they can use any of these cards before March 23rd. >>> They can *ALREADY* do that! Only difference is that now, they'd have >>> to look through the precon, go find out if the card already exists in >>> a previous printing, AND have to go out and score an old version of a >>> card. It's actually MORE complicated NOW. I misunderstood your point here, and now I get it. This assumes that said player decides he must play with card X which he doesn't have. We're (or at least I'm) just talking about the actual process of knowing what's legal or not, without going fishing for cards. That's a whole different story that we can discuss some other time. >> You're right. And I'm wondering how you're missing the point here. > > Well, maybe it's because it's not as good of a point as you think? Ok, but I don't think you've indicated that to me. >>>> Assuming they're going to do some checking, yes. But remember who >>>> we're talking about: people who bring illegal decks to tournaments. >>>> Now, how do you get these people to bring valid decks? Make things >>>> simple. >>> >>> Let me ask you this: if this is all that complex, do you think the DCI >>> is having problems with Magic? This isn't exactly an untried rule, >>> you know. (My perception, for what it's worth, is no. They've never >>> had much of a problem about it that I noticed.) >> >> Magic is a different animal. The players are different. The game is >> simpler. Eh, my arguments about Magic are dumb, as I said before. > I don't quibble over any of this. Sure, it's a different. But it > works. I think you're just scratching for points to evade just accepting > that the reprints-allowed rule works fine. It doesn't cause a ton of > problems like you're suggesting it might. I wish we could just agree on > that rather than quibbling about an issue that to me, seems in way in > doubt. It works fine for those who already think in the DCI way. I never did, for instance, because though I played Magic, I never played competitively. And at least for the majority of my recruited players, it's the same story. No competitive play. No knowledge of the reprint rule for Magic. >> So, wouldn't that newbie feel like it's a bit unfair that he could have >> used card X if he had just *known* it was legal? > > No, not really. Sorry (...again), this seems a bit silly, conjecturing > 'resentment'. Most normal people just slap their foreheads and say, > "HEY! I could have had a V8!" (Or a Dreams of the Sphinx...) If > new-player- seething-resentment over cards they could have played but > didn't know were legal, I'd advocate shooting them with tranquilizer > guns. Aren't we already using them when new players discover an OLD > card they'd never seen before and go berserk? I don't really know what to say. I'm not constructing these examples out of thin air. And with how many I've recruited, I at least have a perception of having a good basis experience to make these points on. >>> Agreed. It's the definition of "simple" that I maintain needs work. >>> When real people tend to assume the opposite of the existing rule, >>> that's a good indication that it's not as "simple" as it could be. >> >> Again, you're not lookinng at the people who might be confused by this >> rule. You're only seeing experienced players. > > Again, no, I'm talking about new players. I don't know why you think > I'm talking about experienced players. Experienced players know the > rule either way and don't bring illegal decks to tournaments. There are two sorts of new players. You're talking about one. I'm talking about the other. My sort are actually probably newer players than yours, but that in and of itself doesn't matter. >> Right back at you Freddie boy. :) > > Check. :-) Mate? Nah, then it would be over. :) Ankur

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1110465894.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Leave the third thing on the table because no one's proposing it and no one I've seen thinks it's a good idea. Between the first two things, agreed they're both pissers. But why should the second thing ever happen? Why should a player ever think a Forced March is legal unless he just assumes there is no rule about new cards. The first thing happens because certain players assume reprints are immediately legal because...there's no good reason reprints shouldn't be immediately legal. So although there's no _perfect_ solution, there's a solution that's better than the others: the second. Fred

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in messagenews:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >>>> Please notice, there's two ways to look at an "inconsistency" here. >>>> You can focus on the expansion symbol on the card or you can look at >>>> whether the card's a reprint or a new card. You insist on suggesting >>>> the focus is on the expansion symbol is the natural thing, you're >>>> going to come to the conclusion that it's more complex to divide up >>>> whole sets into the legal and the illegal. >>> >>> Well, I'm "insisting" upon that based upon a series of arguments around >>> the fact that deciding whether something is a reprint or not is an >>> additional step -- a step which is not necessarily trivial for certain >>> (not-altogether-uncommon-or-pathological) cases. >> >> Insist on it for any reason you want, just notice that it's not the only >> way to view the situation, that other people "naturally" tend to view it >> otherwise, and that an argument which asserts that ITS way of seeing >> reality is the simplest one has a problem when real life evidence tends >> to suggest otherwise. > > I'd say the same to you. I simply happen to think that the sort of new > player I'm talking about is more frequent than the sort you're talking > about. Sure. But I don't care because the existing rule cause problems; the reprints-allowed rule doesn't cause any real problems. > And I've given at least some basis for the fact that certain types > of new players (those who are excited) can cause a lot of unnecessary and > additional work for someone who's trying to promote them to play, because > they'll ask repeated "is this a reprint" questions. And no, as a promoter, > I won't feel like it's going to make a good impression to send them off > searching for websites if I've got the answer in my brain. This, to me, is just conjecturing a "problem" out of thin air. It's not really a problem. If you insist on regarding it as such, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But in my book, it's a really lame reason to oppose reprints. >> Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the >> determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. >> Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like an >> expansion symbol. > > Name in and of itself brings out other different sticky points, which > we're avoiding, remember? (Such as changed text of cards, new misprint, > etc.) I'm arguing these points from a less strong position than I could in > a strict sense, and it's still not an altogether unreasonable position. No, I don't remember. Every time they've been brought up, they turn out to be problems that already exist and are no more of a problem in this situation than they are in any other. >> I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the >> simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that way >> and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the simplest way. > > Ok, Fred. If we don't consider the definition of "simplest" from some > person or demographic perspective, this argument is meaningless. Your > point (at the start of the thread) was, and I'm paraphrasing here, "it's > much simpler to allow reprints as a scheme". No conditions, no other > caveats. I'm responding to that. Well, you kind of have to take into account the sense of what I meant: that considering that people show up with illegal decks because they don't expect there to be a rule against new expansion cards that are reprints, it's just MUCH SIMPLER to allow said reprints. "Simpler" - as in, why are causing ourselves this problem when we don't have to. That doesn't exactly mean the reprints-allowed rule is conceptually simpler than the current one. It just means overall, the whole thing would be easier to deal with. >> That and the fact that the DCI uses the system and doesn't seem to have >> a problem with it. > > The mentality of one game's players don't necessarily move to another's. > I'll freely admit that the later points I tried to make about Magic were, > well, dumb, but at least the previous sentence is correct. I could say any > number of extremely offensive statements about the stereotype of Magic > players, but let's not get into that. Let's just say, "they're different > folk". Fine. I just brought it up to demonstrate that it can work fine - to counter the impression some are suggesting that it cause problems to allow reprints. >> Clearly, that happens, and I fail to see what is so 'important' >> about requiring them to rework their decks at the last minute somehow >> (or worse, applying penalties to them if discovered during play). > > Takes time, puts them on the spot, dunno really. On this I agree with you. > Not sure why it's a big deal. We seem like pretty nice folks all around. Right. That's kind of where I'm coming from when I propose making this change. >> All right, I don't see the communication glitch here but we're clearly >> talking past each other. If a player knows a previous version of the >> card is legal, he CAN use it. If he's never seen it before but knows >> the reprint rule, he won't TRY to use it - unless he takes the time to >> establish that it had been previously printed. I fail to see any >> problems with any of this. > > K, Fred. Let's take the case of a player who's excited about playing this > game, as most new folks are. Now, how's he going to try to find out if > it's a reprint? Don't you think that his first line of attack is to ask > the person who taught him how to play? Seems like a simple question with a > simple answer, right? But then, when he/she says that this card is/isn't > legal, it might spark other questions of the same sort. That's one way. Sure. To me, none of this seems like a bad thing. In fact, questions and interest are good things. > Another is that he goes and looks online or at lists or whatever. This > takes time away in the early times from actual playing or deckbuilding. I > have argued that this is not optimal from the perspective of drawing a new > player. Sorry, to me, this also seems like stretching a point far past it's value. It a new player is that curious and wants to spend time doing that, I'm not going to tell him he's using his available time "incorrectly". > Yet another is that he resigns himself to saying that he's never seen the > card, so it must be new, and therefore, he can't play it. I have *never* > had this personality of new player, ever. And I have a few under my belt. > This is the basic problem with your premise. Well, I don't think it's that much of a problem. There's lots of things you don't know as a new player, including a million cards you've never seen at all. And different players have lots of different personalities, so I don't think speculating on whether they do or do not wish to spend time figuring out exactly which cards they can and can't use in a given tournament is worthwhile. If they do, let them. If they don't, they don't have to. Either way, trying to assert that this causes any kind of REAL practical problem - on the order of players showing up at a tournament with illegal decks they didn't know were illegal - is stretching reason beyond the breaking point, IME. I guess YMMV but at least you understand why I think reprints-allowed ought to be the rule. (And ellided some stuff further down that amounts debating the same thing: "new-player-resentment", etc.) >>> What if he's seen it before, but it's a promo card, which is also not >>> legal yet? >> >> Huh?!? That's scratching. If a new player doesn't know a promo card is >> not legal to play then he might play the promo card itself illegally - >> so this is not a new problem. Answer to this by either system: player >> must know the legal date to play all promo cards. > > Nope, not scratching. My point is whether he'd play the version of the > card from the new set. In order to know, though, you're requiring him to > know more information, as we've talked about before. Remember, said new > player may not know or have realized that the card in question was > actually a promo card. He may not have the card either; just have seen it. I'm still confused. It doesn't matter which set he'd play the card from, the central problem is, he doesn't know the promo card is not yet legal. That's another problem that comes up either way. *IF* he doesn't know whether the promo card is legal or not, *THEN* he may just as well play the original promo card illegally - as well as the possibility that he might play a reprint of the promo card. You haven't added a new problem that wasn't already there before, as far as I can see. > That's a good point. Thanks. The point here is that the what-ifs can cause > additional confusion and could lead to more illegal decks at tournaments. Agreed. And somehow, you haven't explained this in a way that makes me think so. I don't think there are any such what-ifs, but maybe I'm missing something or somehow not understanding a point you're trying to make. Fred

Daneel wrote: > > |> But, silly me. > > | > > | Well, one thing we agree on. ;) > > | > > | Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may have, > > | drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a dog > > > > cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. > > Are you trying to bring in racist (sexist?) remarks? I don't think color > has anything to do with points. You hiding behind some convenient form > of viccissitude just shows how desperate you are. ROFL! Wow, for a moment there I actually thought I was in the middle of a season 2, The Apprentice rerun...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 echia...@yahoo.com wrote: | Daneel wrote: | |>>| Honestly, you are far from being square. Whatever points you may | have, drown in the sea of rabid namecalling. Not that I would mind a | |>>cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. |> |>Are you trying to bring in racist (sexist?) remarks? I don't think | color has anything to do with points. You hiding behind some convenient | form of viccissitude just shows how desperate you are. | | ROFL! Wow, for a moment there I actually thought I was in the middle of | a season 2, The Apprentice rerun... Random accusations of racism are one of the tastiest parts of USENET. =) Also the funniest, when you get down to it. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCMN2EtQZlu3o7QpERAv6yAKCuSfFhCV2k4aHJn2Y1dILLgk03AACg1pwA 7hX+UVcxCgm0bsTA43PkHiM= =LRF2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:-7ednYFyPMu...@giganews.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No effective difference, but still different. However, it not a point that needs arguing. It just is the truth. Vtes is a TCG. However, its so much easier to type CCG. Raille

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >> I understand your point regarding simplicity. I value simplicity. It is >> important, but I think there may be more important things. What do you >> think of the following: >> >> In a perfect world the rule on unaltered reprints would be taken >> loosely. >> The rule would exist, especially for the player's own good (not to >> accidentally confuse reprints with new cards, for which the rule is >> highly logical). Players who came to tournaments with unaltered >> reprints from a set that is not tournament legal yet would be >> tolerated >> without question, and noone would mind other players playing unaltered >> reprints, as they are the same cards they already know, even if they >> have a different expansion symbol. > > Well, then it's not really much of a rule is it? It's more like the > reprint rule, but it's more annoying. Now, you have the situation that > someone could think, "Aw, no one will complain about that. . . " and > then they will be angry when they get called out on it. And yes, they'll > get angry, even if they're at fault. I think that keeping the rule and making using reprints widely accepted is the next best thing (after changing the rule). >> We don't, however, live in a perfect world. So when people show up with >> a KMW Blur or Blood Doll in their decks, some folks will actually >> complain about that. They will see to the judge having to find proxies >> for the reprinted cards. How does replacing a KMW Blur with a BH Blur >> actually make ANY difference? This seems to be beyond pointlessness. > > They complain because there's a rule about that. And despite anything > else, players are generally going to make an effort to be tolerant about > that. The transcript of what happened wherever it did served to prove > that point. I was in a tournament where my predator tried to play > Channel 10 and it wasn't legal. I pointed it out, and the local prince > virtually ripped the card from the offending person's deck and flung it > across the room. :) See, we handled it and it was fine. That's nice. > But I could have made a point about it. And I would be correct in doing > so. I personally don't see a difference between a reprint and a new > card, because if someone says to me that cards of type X aren't legal, > they ain't legal. Now, I wouldn't be averse to allowing reprints, but > simplicity is to be valued above the case where folks don't follow rules. I understand that. > Sounds like you're advocating changing the rules so that people would > follow them. In that case, I think that 30 pool is clearly not fair. It > unnecessarily hinders the newbie, since they don't know how to manage it > yet. I move that we increase the pool each Methuselah receives to 51. > I'd follow that rule. Well, I think this is a bit off... ;) >> Of course, I see the general point of the rule, and I see the general >> point of keeping rules if they exist, but this particular example is >> just beyond me. Even if a rule is generally needed, and keeping rules >> is generally good, doing something stupid is still doing something >> stupid. > > I don't think the rule is stupid. And you haven't shown me that. I'm not saying the rule is stupid. Its enforcement is. That's what the whole paragraph is about. In this particular case I see the reason not to allow new cards (as in, newly designed cards, not reprints), and I wouldn't want that changed. I also see a reason (albeit a weaker one) to go with simplicity and simply state, no card of the new set is tournament legal, regardless of whether it is a completely new card, or an exact reprint of a Jyhad card. I also see the reason to keep a rule once it exists. So, there are three very rational steps, but the end product is still questionable. I think that step one, having the 30-day rule for newly released cards, is necessary. Step two, that is, extending the 30-day rule to reprints, is a product of simplicity. Step three, abiding by the rules, is a logical part, as we are talking about rules. Common practice could change that in practice, but then again, there are people who would mind. So it is step two (simplicity) versus an unintuitive result. I'd go with changing step two (changing the rule to make an exception for reprints). The next best thing is changing step three (abiding by the rule), but that is harder and has a bit less of a point. >> Aside, there's also the issue with new players needing the reprinted >> copies. I'm not sure about this, but I would think that the new >> players >> would especially value if they could use their freshly obtained cards. > > That's *if* they show up with invalid cards. Which is potentially less > likely if you tell them that cards from set X aren't legal. Of course, > some people will associate with the DCI thought process, and so will > find this rule unintuitive. Doesn't mean that V:TES should conform > though. > > As far as the new players wanting to use their shiny cards. . . eh. > They'll always want to use their shiny new cards. Experienced players > would like to use them too -- all those esteems and undue influences and > berettas and suppressing fires. . . . What's the difference? Well, Blur has been around. You know the card. Facing a KMW or BH blur is of no real consequence. Yet the system provides you with an option to be a dick about something trivial. Not good. -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:17:15 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > SCORE! +1 to me. 82-3. These were lame, man. You could've tried something original at least. > |> cf. above paragraph: Pot, Kettle, Black. Shoo now, off you go. > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE! > > Suggest googling the phrase before you make a fool of yourself any more. The pot calling the kettle black. Calling something black => you get it. > You know, the whole "I know you are but what am I?" defense went out > with Pee-Wee Herman, back in the 80's. =) ??? I don't know you. Unless you move your butt over to Europe, neither will I. Until that, it's just the flames. *flame* > Sadly, this is where I am somewhat sad that this medium lacks > "intonation and metacommunication". I'm actually laughing out loud as I > read these, and I'm afraid text doesn't properly represent this. =) No it doesn't. Indeed. > |> Sarcasm requires tone. > | > | Or context, given how this medium is lacking intonation and > | metacommunication (except for stuff like smileys). > > Three words doesn't contain context. Context is the environment. Sentences before and after... you get it. > |> Three words is a statement. > | > | In context. > > With only three words, there isn't any. Blindfold. > | The fact that you are already trying to defend betrays that your > > Wrong. I am pointing out that anecdotal evidence from a single > unsanctioned tournament, with special house rules, is insufficient to > draw ANY conclusions from, whether they support my position or yours. I'm curious whether this fairness would remain were I to claim on Sunday that the tournament was a disaster, lots of people mixed up what cards are legal, etc. > A person more versed in logic and practical application of statistics > would understand this. Didn't you claim to be educated once? Dunno, I can't remember. I don't recall claiming it on this medium (but it is not impossible). I only remember one clear example in another forum (but in that case I quoted specific education, not just education in general). > | expectations concerning any possible problems that might arise match > | mine. Which in turn questions whether your whole reasoning is just a > | house of cards. > > As opposed to yours, which is just a bunch of hot air? At least it's hot. ;) > For one, I forced you back on the issues, instead of your strawman about > how "new players would have seen Anarch Revolt". =) This is all in your head. Just in your head. What's out here is different. > So the new player is going to sit there with his checklist and change > log in hand while he's playing the game, because his AR doesn't work the > way it says on the card and he needs to remember that some of his KMW > cards do the old stuff? Strawman. You intentionally focus on changed reprints (whereas the crux of my argument was unchanged reprints). Please try again. > Speaks for itself, dude =) No, it speaks for you. In a less than pleasant tone. > |> I know I personally do NOT play vicious killer decks when a new player > |> is around; I have no interest in him being the first prey of an Anarch > |> Revolt deck, never getting to play his game, and wondering why he > came. > |> > |> I am sure others do the same. > | > | We seem to have arrived at the eternal "fun play" vs. "tournament play" > | issue. Darkish swamp with a bunch of Will O' the Wisps. Recommend > | donning > | protective gear before entry. > > I demonstrate that it is quite plausable that a new player hasn't seen > Anarch Revolt before, and provide multiple reasons. Multiple reasons being... You don't play killer vicious 2-cap Sabbat Hungry Coyote decks in casual, so others must do the same thing. Wow. > Daneel responds with vague handwaving and ghost stories. Most opinions about casual play oppose any distinction between tournament and casual play. Are facts too vague for you? > Issue is resolved in my favor; moving on. Has the issue been informed of being resolved? Because it seems you are the only one with the notion. > | Dunno about that, it's been a while. But we can probably assume that > the > > Trust me. They're over-paranoid. They believe that deck lists are the > key to the game, as opposed to the actual play. > > (Most) Experienced players know better. Actually, when I put up a deck on the Powerbase:Budapest or the local forums, I always provide a how-to-play explanation. The cards themselves are generally insufficient unless you have a clear vision concerning what parts of the game you do not wish to interact with (and how do you interact with the rest). > | new player will need to be reminded that new cards are not > tournament > | legal yet (if he's that green, he won't even know that). There will > > Sure. You put that sentence (because it's only a sentence) in the > tournament announcement. > > "NOTE: KINDRED MOST WANTED CARDS NOT LEGAL UNTIL (DATE)!" > > Organizers passing it on verbally only have to remember and repeat one > sentence. Problem solved. Added to the whole information regarding what you must know about tournaments (tournament rules, legal decks, etc.) this is +1 sentence. That is, you have a total of n+1 sentences. Since I believe n is not a low number, n+3 isn't significantly more than n+1. > | Not necessarily. ;) I was thinking more along the lines of the Prince > | providing access to a checklist of cards that can (or can't) be used. > > Dude, we can't get Princes to get off their butts and do the BASIC > stuff, like send in tournament reports on time and complete. Then why bother with rules at all? Why bother with the "this ain't legal till xxx whatnot yyy" stuff if they won't be doing it right anyway? That would indicate that the system is flawed, so the true problem is not how making the rules more complex would be bad, but rather how making the rules simpler is necessary. > You're assuming that the Princes are going to do WHAT? And the newbies > are going to want to do WHAT? I only base my experiences on our prince and our newbies. Our community has, thanks to an enthusiastic support, and despite a less-than-enthusiastic official distributor, the following stuff: - about 150 local players - local forums - a website - singles prices controlled by actual competition - a mailing list for the tournament announcements Of course, not every group has people who can build a real community. So it may be part luck. But it is certainly possible. > I think we're getting down to the meat of the matter here. It's all > well and good to set up a complex solution to a perceived problem, but > when it comes down to it, people are human and have trouble getting > complex things right... especially the further from the source you get. There is no need to get too far from the source. With the Internet everyone can connect to the same source. One step is the maximum. > cf. the old game "Chinese Whispers", where you send a simple sentence > whispered ONLY ONCE from person to person around a ring and see what it > sounds like after 10-15 repetitions. Yeah, they tried to pull that stunt on a management training. Not everyone has to distort the message, by the way. Ever notice how the trainer will put the more whimsical people early in the chain, so that the more orderly folks will have a distorted story to pass on, which is harder to do as some of the parts will already be lost? > | If there is some sort of forum (electronic or mundane), like a weekly > | gaming night, or a sponsoring shop, players could access these > | checklists there. > > Unfortunately, I think most people tend to build their decks on very > short notice, so the weekly gaming night isn't as good an idea as it > sounds. The checklist above is still sort of funny, for the reasons > above. Which reasons are kind of rectified. > | But there is the other side of the coin. People complaining about other > | people using a KMW Blur and insisting that it be replaced with > another, > | say, a BH one. Making the option part of the rule, or simply > recognized > | and tolerated, seems like a worthwhile effort. > > Well, people are entitled to have the rules enforced, even if they're > dicks about it. The current rule is "NO KMW CARDS ARE LEGAL", and > therefore it must be enforced, even for cards like Blur. I understand both the necessity to have a rule and the purpose of keeping a rule. But doing something pointless is still pointless. > People who are going to be dicks about the rules are going to find a way > to be dicks, no matter what. The most correct solution, of course, is > for the judge in this case to say "Shut up and play"... but there IS > that pesky letter of the rules to be followed. Fortunately it's not > hard to find a Blur to swap out. Indeed. The rules should be changed not to promote "dickness". A rule that allows people to be dicks but has no real gain in itself is a poor rule. > Making the rule simple makes it easier for people to follow the rule. This is the part where I'm supposed to say "Yes, but! *gasp*". But really, I said it all before. > People who aren't able to understand a simple rule aren't going to > successfully get a complex one right -- those people are unsavable. Why > bother? Well then, why _not_ bother? I mean, the complex rule is not for those who couldn't understand the simple one (but for those who understood it and disagreed with it). Those who couldn't understand it won't matter either way, will they? > | pointless in the given situation. Now the rule is there because of > the > | situations in which it is not pointless, but due to its simplicity > it > | is extended over to situations that open up the possibility of such > | pointlessness. > > But it's still easy to adhere to and communicate, which reduces the > possibility of such pointlessness ever occurring. > > Corollary to above: Princes who don't properly communicate a simple > rule are going to fail to comunicate a complex rule just as stellarly. Rules that are logical are easier to understand. The only reason I can quote when asked why unaltered reprints cannot be used is "because the rules say so". I can quote multiple logical rules for the issue with new cards. > |> Alternately, old-timers could just bring those original copies to the > |> tournament, and if a newbie has somehow failed to understand a), > provide > |> temporary swap-out for whatever they were able. > | > | Which would in turn be utterly pointless. > > Sometimes it's the old-timers who think, rather than the Prince. > > | All this crap about implications would imply that you are capable of > | handling the concept. Which would in turn imply that you don't just > | stick to refuting semantics or hairsplitting expressions, but you > actually > | communicate (part of which is understanding what you read). Since > the > | implications are clearly lacking, the conclusion is that you are > simply > | avoiding the fact that (yet again) you were caught red handed with > an > | ill-cloaked verbal juggle. > > Babble, babble, babble. > > Do I get to start keeping score on this part, too? =) > > Perhaps we can come up with a new term: Vague accusationwaving. Or > wait; accusatory strawman! =) Above, you try to avoid the fact that > I'm giving you a resounding bitchslap by putting words in my mouth; > claiming that "I DIDNT SAY YOU HAD TO IMPROVE". Total distraction, of > course, and simple cover for another slay-the-dragon rant. Did I say that? No. So cut the crap and bow to my superiority, KATS! > In any case, your above paragraph is just more humor. Moving on. > > | You seem to be obsessed with scoring. Sure you don't need a sexual > | therapist? ;P > > Doing just fine, thanks. =) Is the therapist any help? ;) > |> You restated my point in your own words. > | > | Well, healthy flames aside, the pros and cons of the current (and > | proposed) system are probably clear to the both of us. The only > | difference seems to be the benefit vs. cost balance we seem to > | expect from changing the rule. (I'd be happy with an unwritten > change, > | by the way, if people would just let the subject drop and not > complain > | about playing obviously unaltered reprints.) > > No, dude. People are going to be dicks. It's the nature of people; > they get dicky, and they get self-righteous. The most rule-adhering > people are typically the ones who are the biggest dicks, honestly; they > get all pissy because THEY spent effort to not use their KMW Blur, and > why should anyone else be allowed? Do you think this is right? Should the rules promote this? Or should they attempt to minimise the opportunity for this sort of thing? > So people aren't gonna let the subject drop. Everything has to be > crystal clear and in stone. And to do that, it has to be simple, > because otherwise we get decades of rules lawyers applying semantics > over and over again, in an effort to somehow get an exception. > > Some judges are capable of handling the lawyers. Some aren't, and to > save already-overworked judges some time, it's best to just make the > rule simple. I'm thinking along the lines of giving judges and tournament organizers something, so they can quote something when they tell the dicks to stop being dicks and go and play the game. By the way, I'm probably as orderly as you can get. I keep every rule, respect the system, in my own way of course. ;) But really, I'm all for rules. Still, I don't confuse the issues - the rules tell you how you should win, but you should win by playing, not by using the rules. (Exception: I'm generally a dick about taking back cards or actions, especially if I already reacted and revealed stuff up my sleeves. "I bleed..." "I Wake and block..." "Did I say bleed? Sorry, I wanted to say I hunt...") Abusing a rule or sticking to a pointless rule borders on unsportsmanlike to me. Like, some people shuffling decks until the protectors break. Yeah, they can shuffle, yeah, they can reasonably expect my cards not to be completely randomized, but actually damaging my sleeves just isn't worth it. Not in a tournament, not in the finals. > |> | If reprinted cards that were changed are not yet usable, this > problem > |> | won't come up. > |> > |> If KMW cards aren't legal until 30 days after release, the problem > won't > |> come up either. QED. > | > | ....but others will. Next? > > But the others are less complicated and easier to handle. > > Dodging the original point though, which is: It ain't broken. The rules are certainly not broken. The implementation though is far from ideal. > |> Think it through. > | > | What? That you don't need to be a newbie to read cards, and not be > aware > | of things? So does that imply to you that no player should be > treated > | harshly, because there is no clear cut-off point between being a > newbie > | or a veteran? > > No. That if experienced players still need to read cards, expecting a > newbie to remember that a card in his hand doesn't do what it says is > starting to get out of line. Expecting them to learn NEWER text is bad > enough; expecting them to remember that the OLDER text applies? Way > across the line. Strawman. You intentionally focus on changed reprints (whereas the crux of my argument was unchanged reprints). > |> Score! +1 to me! > | > | Man, you should really hang out some more. > > Yeah, maybe if we hung out you could "show me to my place". ;) > BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Or maybe you'd invite me to yours?? That's scary > though. Sorry, I have to decline; I like women and I'm taken. You know, you were even below your usual self with this post. You are generally at least mildly amusing. Generally. > |> You know, I'm almost convinced that you really believe the above > |> paragraph =) But randomly firing shots in the dark won't score you > | > | Again, this scoring. You know, it shouldn't be me and all, but I kind > of > | advise you to get a girlfriend? Or boyfriend, as you wish, just > drop the > | subconscious references and get back to some nice and clean flaming? > > Got one, thanks. =) > > Why bother flaming? You're being funny enough for the both of us. In > case you hadn't noticed, by the way, I don't ever take ad hominem > paragraphs seriously -- I realize what they really represent. No you dont' you ritarded bastarto!!11!1 > |> anything. I suggest thinking the issues through fully, from a > |> perspective that ISN'T based between your ears. Hey, isn't that a > novel > |> idea? > | > | I guess the only valid perspective would be from between YOUR ears. > But, > | I would feel claustrophobic in such a small, dark, confined space, > so > | I'll let the opportunity pass, thank you. > > Can't help it, man. My brain takes up a lot of room in there, doesn't > leave a lot of room for other things. =) This was at least somewhat funny. ;) Keep it up. I realize in your age it must be tough to keep up with those smarter than yourself, but you could at least give it a try, for old times' sake... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:51:32 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > | ROFL! Wow, for a moment there I actually thought I was in the middle of > | a season 2, The Apprentice rerun... > > Random accusations of racism are one of the tastiest parts of USENET. > =) Also the funniest, when you get down to it. Yeah, but you shouldn't abuse such verbal abuse. It is best when saved for the right moment. Remarks of racism and sexism are excellent flamebaits, and there is also a more tragic-comic cultural relevance in most "western" countries. As in "divide et impera"... ;( -- Bye, Daneel

Raille wrote: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>They can call it what they like, but there's no effective difference >>between a TCG and a CCG. > > No effective difference, but still different. > > However, it not a point that needs arguing. It just is the truth. Vtes is > a TCG. > > However, its so much easier to type CCG. I think the complexity of typing TCG is being *WAY* *WAY* overstated. :-) -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 10 Mar 2005 06:44:54 -0800, <x5m...@gmx.de> wrote: > We have three possible solutions. What happens in a tournament in the > 30 days.: > > The existing rule. A player has a new Wake of Evening Freshness. Its > illegal. The player is pissed. > > Reprints are allowed. A player has a Forced March, because he thinks it > is a reprinted crad. "There really was a Forced card, i am sure." Its > illegal. He is pissed. Yeah. A player remembers cards are not legal until one month. But February only has 28 days instead of 30, so he brings a Beretta - Forced March deck to the tournament on the day before the set would become legal. He is pissed. Also, I heared a person once drowned after he accidentally dropped his car keys into a drain. He pushed his head through the bars, but his ears got stuck, and he couldn't pull his head back, so he drowned. Also, there was this allegedly blonde woman who fell out the window when ironing the curtains. Shit happens, or so I was told. Please consider whether overrectifying your examples impacts your credibility. > All new cards and changes are legal immediately. A player has bulid a > deck around the old "Anarch Revolt", because he has no opportunity to > learn the new rule. His playing is illegal. He is pissed. > > There is no solution, that can make all players happy, who dont look > exactly, whats legal and whats illegal in a torunament. In all the > cases, the existing solution is the simplest and clearest. Indeed. Feel free to read the zillion threads people refute this in. -- Bye, Daneel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raille wrote: | "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:-7ednYFyPMu...@giganews.com... |> |>They can call it what they like, but there's no effective difference |>between a TCG and a CCG. | | No effective difference, but still different. If A = 1 and B = 1, then A = B. The point is that it doesn't matter. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCMaGNtQZlu3o7QpERAvn3AJ0aklBoyeC86NAR+wXQmEw/gcFSkQCeJSxq SGjXzQMK2bEanndsjx7zBjI= =THFN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>> Insist on it for any reason you want, just notice that it's not the >>> only way to view the situation, that other people "naturally" tend to >>> view it otherwise, and that an argument which asserts that ITS way of >>> seeing reality is the simplest one has a problem when real life >>> evidence tends to suggest otherwise. >> >> I'd say the same to you. I simply happen to think that the sort of new >> player I'm talking about is more frequent than the sort you're talking >> about. > > Sure. But I don't care because the existing rule cause problems; the > reprints-allowed rule doesn't cause any real problems. Um, not sure how you're getting this sort of umbrella-like conclusion. My entire point is that it *does* cause problems, for a different group of people. >> And I've given at least some basis for the fact that certain types of >> new players (those who are excited) can cause a lot of unnecessary and >> additional work for someone who's trying to promote them to play, >> because they'll ask repeated "is this a reprint" questions. And no, as >> a promoter, I won't feel like it's going to make a good impression to >> send them off searching for websites if I've got the answer in my >> brain. > > This, to me, is just conjecturing a "problem" out of thin air. It's not > really a problem. If you insist on regarding it as such, we'll just > have to agree to disagree. But in my book, it's a really lame reason to > oppose reprints. The use of the phrase "insist" suggests that I'm forcing a point where none exists. I'd urge you to experience the phenomena I'm talking about before you suggest that it's manufactured for the purpose of argument. >>> Sure. What makes you think it works any differently if you make the >>> determination from a card's *name* rather than it's expansion symbol. >>> Last I checked, the name was a visible attribute on a card, just like >>> an expansion symbol. >> >> Name in and of itself brings out other different sticky points, which >> we're avoiding, remember? (Such as changed text of cards, new misprint, >> etc.) I'm arguing these points from a less strong position than I could >> in a strict sense, and it's still not an altogether unreasonable >> position. > > No, I don't remember. Every time they've been brought up, they turn out > to be problems that already exist and are no more of a problem in this > situation than they are in any other. Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to introduce that complication into this discussion at this time. We have enough to babble about. >>> I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the >>> simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that >>> way and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the >>> simplest way. >> >> Ok, Fred. If we don't consider the definition of "simplest" from some >> person or demographic perspective, this argument is meaningless. Your >> point (at the start of the thread) was, and I'm paraphrasing here, >> "it's much simpler to allow reprints as a scheme". No conditions, no >> other caveats. I'm responding to that. > > Well, you kind of have to take into account the sense of what I meant: > that considering that people show up with illegal decks because they > don't expect there to be a rule against new expansion cards that are > reprints, it's just MUCH SIMPLER to allow said reprints. "Simpler" - as > in, why are causing ourselves this problem when we don't have to. That > doesn't exactly mean the reprints-allowed rule is conceptually simpler > than the current one. It just means overall, the whole thing would be > easier to deal with. Sure, *once the scenario has played out poorly*, in other words, once people have ignored the rules, we've got a problem. That's the case no matter what the rule is. Yes, of course you'll have an easier time with players not violating a more liberating rule. But then again, fewer people will break (or try to break) NDA rules if we simply didn't have them. Does that mean (by similar logic) that we shouldn't have them? What non-trivial point are you making here? My point is to the poor sap who wants to play the best deck possible, but doesn't know what is and isn't going to help him achieve that. That is, without research and/or asking those in the know. >> The mentality of one game's players don't necessarily move to >> another's. I'll freely admit that the later points I tried to make >> about Magic were, well, dumb, but at least the previous sentence is >> correct. I could say any number of extremely offensive statements about >> the stereotype of Magic players, but let's not get into that. Let's >> just say, "they're different folk". > > Fine. I just brought it up to demonstrate that it can work fine - to > counter the impression some are suggesting that it cause problems to > allow reprints. I don't dispute that it can work fine. But I've again seen my scenario even in Magic. It's tied to who learns what method first. >>> Clearly, that happens, and I fail to see what is so 'important' about >>> requiring them to rework their decks at the last minute somehow (or >>> worse, applying penalties to them if discovered during play). >> >> Takes time, puts them on the spot, dunno really. On this I agree with >> you. Not sure why it's a big deal. We seem like pretty nice folks all >> around. > > Right. That's kind of where I'm coming from when I propose making this > change. If you're assuming that people break rules and will break rules, then I suppose the more "freeing" rule is the better one. But I see frustration and complication in the adhering-to-this-rule part by newer players. I value simplicity for newer players (where we disagree on what's simple). You value tournament expediency. It seems that we may simply have to disagree about the impact of this rule. >>> All right, I don't see the communication glitch here but we're clearly >>> talking past each other. If a player knows a previous version of the >>> card is legal, he CAN use it. If he's never seen it before but knows >>> the reprint rule, he won't TRY to use it - unless he takes the time to >>> establish that it had been previously printed. I fail to see any >>> problems with any of this. >> >> K, Fred. Let's take the case of a player who's excited about playing >> this game, as most new folks are. Now, how's he going to try to find >> out if it's a reprint? Don't you think that his first line of attack is >> to ask the person who taught him how to play? Seems like a simple >> question with a simple answer, right? But then, when he/she says that >> this card is/isn't legal, it might spark other questions of the same >> sort. That's one way. > > Sure. To me, none of this seems like a bad thing. In fact, questions > and interest are good things. Absolutely. Questions and interest are good things. I'd rather them ask me questions like, "Hey, how many masters should I play?" not questions like "Hey, is Smoke Grenade a legal card?" I'd rather teach them the game than explain to them what is and isn't legal for a 30-day period after which all this "knowledge" which I've passed along is (relatively) meaningless. I am excited to promote the game. But I want new players who can quickly challenge active players, not those know know whether Taste was a reprint or not. >> Another is that he goes and looks online or at lists or whatever. This >> takes time away in the early times from actual playing or deckbuilding. >> I have argued that this is not optimal from the perspective of drawing >> a new player. > > Sorry, to me, this also seems like stretching a point far past it's > value. It a new player is that curious and wants to spend time doing > that, I'm not going to tell him he's using his available time > "incorrectly". Nor would I. But *necessitating* it as a strategy doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. Hey, some players are going to spend hours looking up winning decks and strategies and learning each of the 1493 library cards we've got right now. More power to them. But I'd like to say to someone new "Just play. Don't worry about uber combos or reprints. Just play." On another note, I don't find this a stretch. A new player generally makes his decision to stay or leave within the first 2 months. The first month is half his time. It's important what he feels he needs to do with it to win. >> Yet another is that he resigns himself to saying that he's never seen >> the card, so it must be new, and therefore, he can't play it. I have >> *never* had this personality of new player, ever. And I have a few >> under my belt. This is the basic problem with your premise. > > Well, I don't think it's that much of a problem. There's lots of things > you don't know as a new player, including a million cards you've never > seen at all. And different players have lots of different > personalities, so I don't think speculating on whether they do or do not > wish to spend time figuring out exactly which cards they can and can't > use in a given tournament is worthwhile. If they do, let them. If they If it were speculating without some (limited) basis, I'd be more inclined to agree. If we're talking about real practical problems, we need examples and anecdotes and scenarios and case studies. You can't avoid that. I've brought the weight of about, oh, 30 case studies. Maybe more. > don't, they don't have to. Either way, trying to assert that this > causes any kind of REAL practical problem - on the order of players > showing up at a tournament with illegal decks they didn't know were > illegal - is stretching reason beyond the breaking point, IME. I guess > YMMV but at least you understand why I think reprints-allowed ought to > be the rule. I understand. You value tournament impact more than pre-tournament impact. I value both, but tournament impact (once a violation has occurred, mind you) doesn't affect me as much. >>> Huh?!? That's scratching. If a new player doesn't know a promo card >>> is not legal to play then he might play the promo card itself >>> illegally - so this is not a new problem. Answer to this by either >>> system: player must know the legal date to play all promo cards. >> >> Nope, not scratching. My point is whether he'd play the version of the >> card from the new set. In order to know, though, you're requiring him >> to know more information, as we've talked about before. Remember, said >> new player may not know or have realized that the card in question was >> actually a promo card. He may not have the card either; just have seen >> it. > > I'm still confused. It doesn't matter which set he'd play the card from, > the central problem is, he doesn't know the promo card is not yet legal. He also doesn't know whether a card is a reprint. It's the same problem: new player doesn't know old cards. He doesn't know how to distinguish between them. He doesn't know what is and isn't legal. Also, this guy could be malicious and simply use the excuse "but I thought it was a reprint". NOW what would you do? There is no replacement for that card. > That's another problem that comes up either way. *IF* he doesn't know > whether the promo card is legal or not, *THEN* he may just as well play > the original promo card illegally - as well as the possibility that he > might play a reprint of the promo card. You haven't added a new problem > that wasn't already there before, as far as I can see. He may have, yes. I haven't added a new problem. The problem is: new player does not know old cards. Many misunderstandings can take place. > Agreed. And somehow, you haven't explained this in a way that makes me > think so. I don't think there are any such what-ifs, but maybe I'm > missing something or somehow not understanding a point you're trying to > make. I don't really know how to make my point any more clear or forcefully than the above. We'll see how that works out. Ankur

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daneel wrote: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:17:15 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: |> cf. the old game "Chinese Whispers", where you send a simple sentence |> whispered ONLY ONCE from person to person around a ring and see what it |> sounds like after 10-15 repetitions. | | Yeah, they tried to pull that stunt on a management training. Not everyone | has to distort the message, by the way. Ever notice how the trainer will | put the more whimsical people early in the chain, so that the more | orderly folks will have a distorted story to pass on, which is harder to do as | some of the parts will already be lost? Wow. What this says is that I need to stop responding immediately. If you're the sort of person who believes that someone early on intentionally distorts the message... and that the trainers are _intentionally_ setting it up to have the best chances of being distorted... Well, honestly, it just says it all right there. I didn't realize I was arguing with one of your type. Suffice it to say that neither of your assumptions are true, and now let's move on. I'm snipping the rest of this message and not wasting any more time -- you're never going to get it. I'm sure you'll post some wordy response claiming some blather or other, from some twisted need to have the last word. Say whatever you want; my original points stand on their own merit, and will continue to do so. As I said before, your participation is not required. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCMakwtQZlu3o7QpERArUmAJ0Zoh+vkMrJx8Ix1f+6syNt19yjPwCeM7Mc 9zIjoHpOA2mqplMOAJwijbw= =4EsS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:20:32 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Wow. What this says is that I need to stop responding immediately. If > you're the sort of person who believes that someone early on > intentionally distorts the message... and that the trainers are > _intentionally_ setting it up to have the best chances of being > distorted... whimsical [wɪmzɪkəl, hwɪmzɪkəl] A adjective 1 capricious, impulsive, whimsical determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason; "a capricious refusal"; "authoritarian rulers are frequently capricious"; "the victim of whimsical persecutions" (source: www.wordreference.com) Honestly, for all you claiming other people not reading and getting stuff - you can't even read what is supposed to be in your mother tongue. I suggest taking the excercise you mentioned, so you have first-hand experience with it. Or ask a trainer. Or just grow up. But of course, it is always easier to be namecalling than to bring arguments, and always easier to back down namecalling than admitting that you were wrong, all along. The points stand - even if you lack the courage to face them. Even if you try to ignore them and focus on an irrelevant paragraph and demonize me with it. Even if you lack the intelligence to understand an opinion other than your own. Even if you don't have what it takes to produce valid arguments - and you don't even have the wits to flame entertainingly (or the guts to take being outclassed or proven wrong). Capital asshole. -- Bye, Daneel

Raille wrote: > > > No effective difference, but still different. > > However, it not a point that needs arguing. It just is the truth. Vtes is > a TCG. > > However, its so much easier to type CCG. > You can easily play V:TES without ever trading any cards. You can't possibly play it without ever collecting any cards. Just a thought.

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >>>> Insist on it for any reason you want, just notice that it's not the >>>> only way to view the situation, that other people "naturally" tend to >>>> view it otherwise, and that an argument which asserts that ITS way of >>>> seeing reality is the simplest one has a problem when real life >>>> evidence tends to suggest otherwise. >>> >>> I'd say the same to you. I simply happen to think that the sort of new >>> player I'm talking about is more frequent than the sort you're talking >>> about. >> >> Sure. But I don't care because the existing rule cause problems; the >> reprints-allowed rule doesn't cause any real problems. > > Um, not sure how you're getting this sort of umbrella-like conclusion. My > entire point is that it *does* cause problems, for a different group of > people. OK. I don't see how but if you really think these are serious problems, then that's one fundamental source of our disagreement that we'll never resolve. For me, something like the newbies-pestering-me-about-which-cards- are-legal issue isn't something I could visualize as a serious problem in a million years. (A couple of other back-and-forths that seem to boil down to the same thing deleted...) >>>> I don't want to here the argument that the existing system must be the >>>> simplest one. I'm simply pointing out to you that some don't see that >>>> way and here's evidence that maybe you're wrong - it's NOT the >>>> simplest way. >>> >>> Ok, Fred. If we don't consider the definition of "simplest" from some >>> person or demographic perspective, this argument is meaningless. Your >>> point (at the start of the thread) was, and I'm paraphrasing here, >>> "it's much simpler to allow reprints as a scheme". No conditions, no >>> other caveats. I'm responding to that. >> >> Well, you kind of have to take into account the sense of what I meant: >> that considering that people show up with illegal decks because they >> don't expect there to be a rule against new expansion cards that are >> reprints, it's just MUCH SIMPLER to allow said reprints. "Simpler" - as >> in, why are causing ourselves this problem when we don't have to. That >> doesn't exactly mean the reprints-allowed rule is conceptually simpler >> than the current one. It just means overall, the whole thing would be >> easier to deal with. > > Sure, *once the scenario has played out poorly*, in other words, once > people have ignored the rules, we've got a problem. That's the case no > matter what the rule is. Yes, of course you'll have an easier time with > players not violating a more liberating rule. But then again, fewer people > will break (or try to break) NDA rules if we simply didn't have them. Does > that mean (by similar logic) that we shouldn't have them? What non-trivial > point are you making here? I'm not sure what the "NDA rules" are but it probably doesn't matter. I assume whatever they are, there's a good reason for them. There doesn't seem to be a very good reason for the existing rule to be constructed as it is, other than conceptual simplicity. The conceptual simplicity over a reprints-allowed rule doesn't seem to buy us anything so screw it. > My point is to the poor sap who wants to play the best deck possible, but > doesn't know what is and isn't going to help him achieve that. That is, > without research and/or asking those in the know. Hey, *I* want to play the best deck possible and *I* don't know what that deck is. So what?!? It all boils down to what we don't know about the game. In the case of a newbie like this, not knowing a few extra cards are legal for 30 days is simply NOT a problem. Trying to form fit this point into some way of demonstrating a problem isn't working, as far as I can see. There is no problem. > You value tournament expediency. It seems that we may simply have to disagree about the impact of this rule. I suspect it's come to that, yes. The only sort of interesting point left, IMO, is the little scenario about the still-illegal promo card reprinted in an expansion: >>>> Huh?!? That's scratching. If a new player doesn't know a promo card >>>> is not legal to play then he might play the promo card itself >>>> illegally - so this is not a new problem. Answer to this by either >>>> system: player must know the legal date to play all promo cards. >>> >>> Nope, not scratching. My point is whether he'd play the version of the >>> card from the new set. In order to know, though, you're requiring him >>> to know more information, as we've talked about before. Remember, said >>> new player may not know or have realized that the card in question was >>> actually a promo card. He may not have the card either; just have seen >>> it. >> >> I'm still confused. It doesn't matter which set he'd play the card from, >> the central problem is, he doesn't know the promo card is not yet legal. > > He also doesn't know whether a card is a reprint. I believe in scenario you originally related, it *was* a reprint and he knew it was a reprint; he simply didn't know that the card was a reprint of was not yet legal (thus neither was the reprint). The only problem is just what I stated - and not a new one introduced by reprints-allowed. > Also, this guy could be malicious and simply use the excuse "but I thought it was a reprint". NOW what would you do? There is no > replacement for that card. Maliciousness is another problem we can't solve with rules. I can only say that this would be very rare. What would someone really have to gain by this? The first competant player who knew the tournament rules would call on it the instant the card was played and you can be pretty sure that the resolution of that would in no way help the offender's game. He may not get punished heavily for it (or even at all), but it's highly unlikely pulling something like that on purpose would gain one anything in the long run. >> That's another problem that comes up either way. *IF* he doesn't know whether the promo card is legal or not, *THEN* he may just >> as well play the original promo card illegally - as well as the possibility that he might play a reprint of the promo card. You >> haven't added a new problem that wasn't already there before, as far as I can see. > > He may have, yes. I haven't added a new problem. The problem is: new player does not know old cards. Many misunderstandings can > take place. To me, the criteria for evaluating this change has to do with whether a new problem has been introduced or an existing problem has become exacerbated. I see this sceneraio has rarer than hen's teeth - how often does a promo card get released, reprinted, but 30 days hasn't passed before reprinting? Even magazine promos that come out ahead of a new expansion usually do so 30 days or more before the expansion is released. So suffice it to say, this scenario doesn't bother me. Fred

> I'm not sure what the "NDA rules" are but it probably doesn't matter. I I meant NRA. >> You value tournament expediency. It seems that we may simply have to >> disagree about the impact of this rule. > > I suspect it's come to that, yes. I give up. In the words of Peter Bajika, I have been defeated via fatigue. I should have done this days ago. It's so liberating that I bet new players would try to include it in their decks. :) Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in messagenews:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > I give up. In the words of Peter Bajika, I have been defeated via fatigue. No, you haven't! Sorry, couldn't resist. It's a line from - appropriately enough - the end of the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch where the guy goes rushing out of the room in frustration and disgust. :-) Fred

> "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in > messagenews:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... >> I give up. In the words of Peter Bajika, I have been defeated via fatigue. > > No, you haven't! sigh. :) > Sorry, couldn't resist. It's a line from - appropriately enough - the > end of the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch where the guy goes > rushing out of the room in frustration and disgust. :-) Sigh again. Ankur "rushes out of the room in frustration and disgust at 0 stealth" P.S. Hey Fred, gonna DI that? <ducks>

In message <1110561432....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >You can easily play V:TES without ever trading any cards. You can't >possibly play it without ever collecting any cards. Just a thought. Borrow them from a friend. (Vg znl or jbegu cbvagvat bhg gung V ernyyl, ernyyl qba'g pner. Vg znl nyfb or jbegu cbvagvat bhg gung vg pregnvayl frrzrq yvxr n ahzore bs tnzrf fgnegrq hfvat GPT naq PPT frcnengryl nebhaq gur gvzr gung Jvmneqf bs gur Pbnfg fgnegrq svyvat cngragf, gubhtu guvf znl or pb-vapvqragny.) -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

Then your friend would have to have collected them. Perhaps, to put it another way, in order to trade the cards, you need to collect them. In order to collect them, you do not necessarily have to trade.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:52:39 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1110561432....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Chris > Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> You can easily play V:TES without ever trading any cards. You can't >> possibly play it without ever collecting any cards. Just a thought. > > Borrow them from a friend. Good point. You can also trade the cards you borrowed without ever collecting any. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gb2dnVVhAMA...@giganews.com... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Raille wrote: > | "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > | news:-7ednYFyPMu...@giganews.com... > |> > |>They can call it what they like, but there's no effective difference > |>between a TCG and a CCG. > | > | No effective difference, but still different. > > If A = 1 and B = 1, then A = B. > > The point is that it doesn't matter. > > - -- > Derek It matters, especially if your a lawyer. Raille

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:%WeYd.899$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > Raille wrote: >> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>They can call it what they like, but there's no effective difference >>>between a TCG and a CCG. >> >> No effective difference, but still different. >> >> However, it not a point that needs arguing. It just is the truth. Vtes >> is >> a TCG. >> >> However, its so much easier to type CCG. > > I think the complexity of typing TCG is being *WAY* *WAY* overstated. > > :-) > But I'm not english. I don't like Tea! Raille

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1110561432....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure you can, its called Loaner decks. I'm sure your play group has a few. Raille

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsniknn...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] I concur, well except about the trading borrowed cards bit. :) Raille