Haven't I heard all this before?

All this craziness about group 4 was discussed and debated when group 3 came out along with all the same sort of melodramatics associated with it. One playtester breached confidentiality (probably) Princes resigned, the doom of Jyhad/VTES was prophesied and group 4 was foretold. However, much like the y2k bug the world didn't come to an end and most of us kept on playing happily, coming up with new combos, getting excited about special abilities and so on. Those of us who stayed trusted that the grouping rule would work and I think it did for the most part. Now don't get me wrong, I feel (and so does my wallet) a fair amount of trepidation about group 4 vampires but it is probably worth trusting White Wolf in regard to this. IMO the balance of the game seems to have taken priority ever since they took back control of it from WotC. My one criticism is about the secrecy or lack of openness with which WW approaches change. If we had been given a long term vision when group 3 was announced then perhaps a few more people might be around and a lot of fears put to rest. So I lay down the gauntlet to WW/Steve Wieck/LSJ! Explain your longer term vision for the game especially in light of the fact that Gehenna ends VTM and that VTES continues. And from a marketing/commercial perspective (we all realise you have to make a profit after all) perhaps take a note from novelist Stephen King who habitually tells the reader in advance if a character is going to die and thus ensures the reader keeps reading so that they find out exactly how it happens. WW is not Microsoft. With the game having been this far developed, no other company can really muscle in on your operations and expect to succeed. Customer loyalty and consumer confidence now is paramount. John

"John Alston Campbell" <jra...@internode.on.net> wrote in message news:406915a7$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net... > My one criticism is about the secrecy or lack of openness with which WW > approaches change. If we had been given a long term vision when group 3 was > announced then perhaps a few more people might be around and a lot of fears > put to rest. So I lay down the gauntlet to WW/Steve Wieck/LSJ! Explain > your longer term vision for the game especially in light of the fact that > Gehenna ends VTM and that VTES continues. Long term vision: http://minilien.com/?BzQJhLgkOA And before you say there is not enough detail, consider the position WW is in. If WW announces its long term plan for everything and you don't like something down the road are you going to jump ship now or later? Probably now. Consider also that long term plans are subject to change. If WW announces its plans it would be deluged with complaints like "you said...." if they had to change plans. While I would like to know the future too, its often against WW's interests for them to tell us. All this complaining right now is premature (as other have pointed out). [I'm not referring to you when I refer to "all this complaining"] New vamps could be group 3, so far we only know 1 vampire (sabbat) that will be group 4, and there are indicators that there will be group 3 in the set (Jan Peckerzoom advanced would break the pattern of advanced=same group if he is not group 3). Regards, -JTP Winnipeg

John Alston Campbell wrote: > So I lay down the gauntlet to WW/Steve Wieck/LSJ! Explain > your longer term vision for the game especially in light of the fact that > Gehenna ends VTM and that VTES continues. ? As for the grouping rule, the long term vision is to allow more vampires to be printed without unduly degenerating deck design. Is there something else you're thinking of? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> All this complaining right now is premature (as other have pointed > out). [I'm not referring to you when I refer to "all this complaining"] > New vamps could be group 3, so far we only know > 1 vampire (sabbat) that will be group 4, and there are indicators > that there will be group 3 in the set (Jan Peckerzoom advanced would > break the pattern of advanced=same group if he is not group 3). Hiya, Jan Pieterzoon is group 2 if I recall correctly.. Greetz, jo > > Regards, > -JTP > Winnipeg

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.04033...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Can you tell that I use him alot? Right... he was Final nights. So there we have evidence that groups 4 and 2 will be appearing. I'll bet that there's group 3 though in the set :) . Thanks for the catch, -John Winnipeg

John wrote: >Now don't get me wrong, I feel (and so does my wallet) a fair amount of >trepidation about group 4 vampires Why? I simply don't understand the "financial concern" that seems to have people being afraid of Group 4. Assuming that Group 4 is designed the same way as Group 3 was (and we have no reason to believe otherwise), they will not be necessary for game play, in the sense that they won't be any better than Group 1 or Group 2 vampires (as is true for the current Group 3 vampires). You will be able to spend the rest of your life playing this game without Group 4 vampires if you want (by using only Group 1+2 or Group 2+3 crypts) and feel no ill effects, in terms of being able to compete. Thus, Group 4 (or 5 or 6) will never be necessary for game play, especially as one of the main incentives for the Group rule in the first place is that earlier groups will be balanced out against later groups, in terms of overall size and play value. No one will need, in any sense, to ever feel compelled to use Group 4. They will simply be an option. Then, yes, Gehenna boosters will come with Group 4 vampires. So if you want to buy Gehenna packs to use the new non-vampire cards, you'll be stuck with useless Group 4 vampires, ‘cause you steadfastly refuse to use Group 4. Ok. You can always use Group 4 with Group 3 vampires. It seems likely that most folks who are going to buy into Gehenna cards already have a lot of Group 3 vampires. Yes, I accept that it is possible that there are players out there who have purchased zero Camarilla+ sets yet they really wanna get into the Gehenna set, and so they have no Group 3 vampires. I also accept that this particular situation comprises a very small portion of the player base. This is a CCG. Sometimes you end up with cards that you are never going to use. I bought a whole lot of Anarchs cards (ok, maybe, like, a box or so). And I am still yet to build a single deck that uses the Anarch mechanic. So all those Anarch only cards? I'm never using them. In reality, I traded most of them off so, like, Sackett could make his "50 Diversions" deck, or whatever, but still, a good portion of that set? Little to no use to me. Do I resent WW for making that set? Not at all. I like the game. I like the parts I could use, and I'm happy that they keep making cards, even if I don't want to use them all. >My one criticism is about the secrecy or lack of openness with which WW >approaches change. If we had been given a long term vision when group 3 was >announced then perhaps a few more people might be around and a lot of fears >put to rest. A long term vision? You mean like "We are introducing a Group rule. We are starting with Group 3. We'll probably go on and have Group 4 eventually, as that is the inevitable result of this particular plan"? That kind of long term vision? We knew that as soon as that invented the Group rule. There was no question that there would be Group 4 eventually. I'm surprised that it took this long for us to see Group 4 at all. >So I lay down the gauntlet to WW/Steve Wieck/LSJ! Explain >your longer term vision for the game especially in light of the fact that >Gehenna ends VTM and that VTES continues. Well, as little more that a player of this game, I understand the long term vision to be "Continue making cards and vampires and new sets. As the only logical way to continue making new vampires is to make new Groups, like Group 4, then we will introduce new Groups to the vampire pool." Where is the question? -Peter