Public playtesting?

The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets so very secret? Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? How about posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to make comments about? What do you think? In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards from ever being printed.

as...@hotmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I think the surprise and resulting excitement is a powerful mechanic to keep potential buyers interested, I don´t think that should be discarded so easily. On top of that I think that it would be way too much work for LSJ to go through all of the resulting discussions, especially since they are bound to have tons of unqualified or off-topic posts (just like the newsgroup). The overall power-curve for the sets is pretty OK I think, if I could change something I would probably do a bit less wallpaper cards and different reprints (not so much crap-rares).

In message <7fc93105-24e1-484f...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets >enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets >so very secret? I have no idea what LSJ's specific reasoning is but, from my own experience in other arenas[0], highly public "playtesting" tends to: - result in a lot of heat and noise, but not much light. People shout *a lot*. Note that some cards / mechanics / whatever will change massively over time, and you can generate a lot of abuse and frustration as each tweak and twist is used to psychoanalyse exactly how stupid the designers are. - lots of *bad* theory. Testing things out theoretically is useful and, to an extent, necessary. However, this can quickly descend into willy-waving of the "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." Repeat ad nauseum. - a decline in actual testing. You'd be surprised just how much better testing can be with a small group of 5 people on it, rather than a sprawling group of 30. A couple of friends came to me one time and begged me to do a code review of a revamped area they'd designed, because the playtesters weren't doing it. Playtesters were walking up and down going "Oh, how pretty" but not actually finding the things they were supposed to - bugs, typos, suggestions for how to make it better, sub-optimal commands. With so many more people "testing", everyone could just assume that someone else would do it. - false expectations. If I've designed a bunch of Aim cards and had to scrap them because they just weren't right, for some reason, people will whine. - false expectations (2) - because I've just made the best suggestion EVER to make Hag's Wrinkles better, LSJ will obviously include it in the set exactly as written. - hysteria and nuance. When sending things to large groups of players, there will be inevitable loss of nuance. That paragraph you wrote about how this is just a brainstorming session? Lost. You're trying out a half-dozen different ideas, but only intend to print one, maybe two? No, you're definitely creating six massively overpowered cards for the Sabbat, and the Camarilla are just fucked because LSJ hates the Camarilla and why are you still buying this game you fool? - time. Sifting through feedback from a small group is more manageable than having to go through bitchfests from a couple of hundred people. Additionally, open playtests will inevitably mean that people bitch on the newsgroup, the WW forums, various national forums, IRC, mailing lists, a few quick-ish real-time JOL games... That's a lot of places to try to manage, and LSJ obviously only has 24 hours available in a day and a family to look after too! - some decisions are taken because they're right, not popular. e.g. grouping. Also, LSJ can potentially try out a set while leaking possible card rewrites/bans to a small group of playtesters. "Yeah, could you try out these new Inner Circle vamps? We're thinking of toning down PTO or banning it, so don't worry overly about that." - not wanting every single difference between the final texts and what gets printed to be analyzed, with ensuing abuse being hurled at the layout editor or printers. "What? You gave her ani instead of ANI? You fucking suck. SACK HIM." - facilities. Experience suggests that there are some issues with getting the White Wolf website updated, which is likely to be a problem for timely updates and changes. Which isn't to say that the current system is necessarily optimal. - In the past, the create-a-card poll was well received - though I feel the actual options offered were a bit meh. (Also, long before that, there was a "Who's your favourite vampire to be printed?" which I think gave us Hesha.) A few more things like that wouldn't necessarily be bad. - Ideas have openly been sought for expansions (which I think gave us Kindred Most Wanted, from Matt Green), and some "pre-design" decisions were openly discussed (such as the composition of Final Nights). - The WW LJ blog often gives a sort of "view from the bunker" about a given product, and titbits about how things are going. They're clearly not open playtests (which would be horrific), but they do provide useful communication. >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? Marketing. Giving an "exclusive" preview to influential magazines or websites. Managing expectations if things go awry. Excitement. Pre-release buzz. >How about posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all >players to make comments about? Some cards and mechanics have been mentioned before, such as early drafts of cards in White Wolf Quarterly, and similar. I remember Web of Knives Recruit (I think) turning up in one. >In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards >from ever being printed. Won't happen. There are plenty of cards that have taken months and years to exploit properly. There are also plenty of cards that are taken as being the best thing since sliced bread, but in real, sober play, they just don't work like that. [0] Online gaming - both formerly as a creator on a MUD, and a player on said MUD, and a consumer of other games. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > so very secret? Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? How about > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > make comments about? What do you think? do not want. having seen the many long painful threads about just how overpowered cards that actually see print are (Meddling of Semsith, for example? When's the last time anyone even saw that played? other than me 2 nights ago, which sucked since i was the target, but still...) with rants and abuse and 'obviously..', and then 6 months later, turns out it was all about nothing. We don't need that x100. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

On 1 Okt, 10:33, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <7fc93105-24e1-484f-b43b-db0d1f1d7...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > >enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > >so very secret? > > I have no idea what LSJ's specific reasoning is but, from my own > experience in other arenas[0], highly public "playtesting" tends to: I think you repeat yourself alot in this post. I´ll comment on some. > - result in a lot of heat and noise, but not much light. People shout > *a lot*. Note that some cards / mechanics / whatever will change > massively over time, and you can generate a lot of abuse and > frustration as each tweak and twist is used to psychoanalyse exactly > how stupid the designers are. I think White Wolf this far has shown great ability to not listen to people that shout. I don´t think it takes much of time to sift through some comments and judging which are good and which are just idiots. > - lots of *bad* theory. Testing things out theoretically is useful and, > to an extent, necessary. However, this can quickly descend into > willy-waving of the "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh > FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi > PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." Repeat ad nauseum. See above. > - a decline in actual testing. You'd be surprised just how much better > testing can be with a small group of 5 people on it, rather than a > sprawling group of 30. A couple of friends came to me one time and > begged me to do a code review of a revamped area they'd designed, > because the playtesters weren't doing it. Playtesters were walking up > and down going "Oh, how pretty" but not actually finding the things > they were supposed to - bugs, typos, suggestions for how to make it > better, sub-optimal commands. With so many more people "testing", > everyone could just assume that someone else would do it. Maybe my choice of words was wrong. "Comments" or "Thoughts" or "Feedback" then, not actual testing. > - false expectations. If I've designed a bunch of Aim cards and had to > scrap them because they just weren't right, for some reason, people > will whine. I´m not sure if I understand you here... If you design a bunch of bad cards, isn´t it good if you notice this before printing them, with a chance to make them better? > - false expectations (2) - because I've just made the best suggestion > EVER to make Hag's Wrinkles better, LSJ will obviously include it in > the set exactly as written. See above. White Wolf should not focus on what a certain individual thinks. > - hysteria and nuance. When sending things to large groups of players, > there will be inevitable loss of nuance. That paragraph you wrote > about how this is just a brainstorming session? Lost. You're trying > out a half-dozen different ideas, but only intend to print one, maybe > two? No, you're definitely creating six massively overpowered cards > for the Sabbat, and the Camarilla are just fucked because LSJ hates > the Camarilla and why are you still buying this game you fool? See above. Why should anyone care about comments like that? > - time. Sifting through feedback from a small group is more manageable > than having to go through bitchfests from a couple of hundred people. > Additionally, open playtests will inevitably mean that people bitch on > the newsgroup, the WW forums, various national forums, IRC, mailing > lists, a few quick-ish real-time JOL games... That's a lot of places > to try to manage, and LSJ obviously only has 24 hours available in a > day and a family to look after too! See above. It would not take great amounts of time to post a card- or mechanic idea at the site with attached comment-field or a forum- thread, and then look throught the results. > - some decisions are taken because they're right, not popular. e.g. > grouping. Also, LSJ can potentially try out a set while leaking > possible card rewrites/bans to a small group of playtesters. "Yeah, > could you try out these new Inner Circle vamps? We're thinking of > toning down PTO or banning it, so don't worry overly about that." It´s a very specific example you have here. > - not wanting every single difference between the final texts and what > gets printed to be analyzed, with ensuing abuse being hurled at the > layout editor or printers. "What? You gave her ani instead of ANI? > You fucking suck. SACK HIM." I do not understand what you mean. Should there be a problem keeping track of what should be printed because it was discussed on the internet some months earlier? > - facilities. Experience suggests that there are some issues with > getting the White Wolf website updated, which is likely to be a > problem for timely updates and changes. This I agree of is a problem. Not a big one though. > Which isn't to say that the current system is necessarily optimal. > > - In the past, the create-a-card poll was well received - though I feel > the actual options offered were a bit meh. (Also, long before that, > there was a "Who's your favourite vampire to be printed?" which I > think gave us Hesha.) A few more things like that wouldn't > necessarily be bad. When was this? I don´t remember. It has happened twice? This is kind of the thing I´m after. > - Ideas have openly been sought for expansions (which I think gave us > Kindred Most Wanted, from Matt Green), and some "pre-design" decisions > were openly discussed (such as the composition of Final Nights). It has? I´ve never seen anything like that. > >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? > > Marketing. Giving an "exclusive" preview to influential magazines or > websites. Managing expectations if things go awry. Excitement. > Pre-release buzz. This would not be affected. We will not see what is printed until the set is released (or previewed). > >How about posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all > >players to make comments about? > > Some cards and mechanics have been mentioned before, such as early > drafts of cards in White Wolf Quarterly, and similar. I remember Web of > Knives Recruit (I think) turning up in one. So this has happened once then. Not exactely what I´m after. > >In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > >from ever being printed. > > Won't happen. There are plenty of cards that have taken months and > years to exploit properly. There are also plenty of cards that are > taken as being the best thing since sliced bread, but in real, sober > play, they just don't work like that. No, not totally prevent, but I think it would limit the amount of unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] White Wolf/CCP does not want to publicly post its intellectual property in development in order to protect themselves from other companies who might steal their ideas or change their development or marketing strategies based on what White Wolf/CCP is doing. - Ben Peal

>> - a decline in actual testing. You'd be surprised just how much better >> testing can be with a small group of 5 people on it, rather than a >> sprawling group of 30. A couple of friends came to me one time and >> begged me to do a code review of a revamped area they'd designed, >> because the playtesters weren't doing it. Playtesters were walking up >> and down going "Oh, how pretty" but not actually finding the things >> they were supposed to - bugs, typos, suggestions for how to make it >> better, sub-optimal commands. With so many more people "testing", >> everyone could just assume that someone else would do it. > > Maybe my choice of words was wrong. "Comments" or "Thoughts" or > "Feedback" then, not actual testing. I think actual testing is much more valuable than a big pile of comments. The many underpowered cards we see could be a result of insufficient testing where playtesting is only done with the cards that seem (too) strong from the first glance and try to keep them in check. Perhaps due to the lack of time and/or interest nobody is building test-decks with the "lame" cards and says, hey that card proved to be really inefficient. From the experience in general playtesting I have I can only say that you need to either pay the people to do it or give them a lot of time. If you expect them to do it in spare time they can´t do it very well, especially when they have to judge e.g a set of 400 cards. Since the playtesting for VTES is afaik volunteer work it is often not done very careful, not because the people dont care or are not able but they lack the time to do so.

ben...@gmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I don´t know, Ben. That might be true for a MMORG, but for a card game that exists for 10+ years? Look at the new IP they are introducing (which is mostly from WW background, so allready available in public): is Magic going to make their Goblins Anarch because they had a sneak preview of Twillight Rebellion? ;-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Ridiculus. Who would steal a VtES idea? "Yes, I see they are going to make these aim-cards - I better steal that idea for my game", or what? See Johannes reply.

On Oct 1, 3:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > so very secret? Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? Surprise is, I'm sure, something that some folks like about new sets. But more than that, I suspect NDA/secret playtesting makes the process work better for all involved. Having been involved in the playtesting process in the past, I can say that I would prefer if playtesting were slightly less secret than it has been (i.e. it would be nice if separate playtest groups could compare notes). But as to doing it all in the open, that strikes me as far more counter productive than not. > How about > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > make comments about? What do you think? I suspect it would be incredibly chaotic. And filled with a lot of noise and smoke, and not much actual playtesting. > In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > from ever being printed. Probably not. Things like this happen. It is not possible for playtesting to catch everything. Things like weak cards and too strong cards slip throught the cracks, as there isn't really a way to prevent it. When you are presented with a pile of playtest cards, you look for ones that are interesting or possibly too powerful (as cards that are too powerful are way worse than cards that are weak). And you tend to focus on those--you build a deck to break card X, play it a few times, send in a report, get the next playtest file, see what changed, keep trying to break card X, send in a report, and so on. I can say with certainty that in the past, I have helped turn cards that were wildly over the top, power wise, into much more reasonable cards. Cards that are weak tend to not get much attention, unless they are incredibly, obviously weak (you should have seen the *original* version of Tourtured Confessions...). 'Cause cards that are weak don't inspire much attention, and unless they are measurably weak on paper, they probably aren't going to see much play in playtest. So cards that look generally average, but might be under the curve, tend to slip through. As playtesting takes a long time and a lot of effort (you need to see a card that looks like something that needs testing, figure out a way to see if it is broken, build a deck, play that deck multiple times, hope the card sees play in those multiple games, hope you aren't ousted before the card becomes an issue, and so on), you do the best you can, but accept that every once and a while, something will slip through the cracks. As it always does. -Peter

In message <862a9f21-fc3c-4006...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >On 1 Okt, 10:33, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >I think White Wolf this far has shown great ability to not listen to >people that shout. I don´t think it takes much of time to sift through >some comments and judging which are good and which are just idiots. I'll comment here, but it applies to many of your other comments. You're confusing what WW should (and what LSJ probably would) do, and what people would expect based on a so-called open playtest. There's a huge gap. If you tout an open playtest, people will expect you to fix cards and create cards in the way they say so - you wouldn't run an open playtest and just ignore people, would you? Except, of course, you'd have to - 90% of comments would be irrelevant or wrong, because that's just how people are. Of course, people can accept that - except when you ignore their feedback, because they're not in the 90%, that's where other people are. When holding an open playtest and ignoring the vast majority of what people say (pretty much necessarily so, because people will say so much and you can only do a small number of them, regardless of quality), you're just making a rod for your own back. >> - false expectations. If I've designed a bunch of Aim cards and had to >> scrap them because they just weren't right, for some reason, people >> will whine. > >I´m not sure if I understand you here... If you design a bunch of bad >cards, isn´t it good if you notice this before printing them, with a >chance to make them better? Again, not the point. You pull something from the set, for good reasons (can't quite balance it, it's just not working how you want, someone comes up with a better idea that makes you think about a whole new mechanic for the next set, whatever). People at this point will whine. If you're extra lucky, people will whine and complain you're making them buy another set in the future. "Oh look, they take the popular things and shove them in another set, just to screw even more cash out of us." Add conspiracy theories to taste. You can do things for good reasons - for the best of reasons - and people will still whine, because they see it from their metagame, not the global game view that LSJ will obviously try to bear in mind. >> - hysteria and nuance. When sending things to large groups of players, >> there will be inevitable loss of nuance. That paragraph you wrote >> about how this is just a brainstorming session? Lost. You're trying >> out a half-dozen different ideas, but only intend to print one, maybe >> two? No, you're definitely creating six massively overpowered cards >> for the Sabbat, and the Camarilla are just fucked because LSJ hates >> the Camarilla and why are you still buying this game you fool? > >See above. Why should anyone care about comments like that? Because having a massive load of players bitching, screaming and fucked off for no reason *isn't good for the game*. See the vast amount of bitching that followed on from 7/7, for example. Does anyone really want to live through that again? Really? Remember the screams about Victor Pelletier being so necessary, and how Ector would personally need 50 copies, and so would each of his players? Funny how that hasn't turned into a problem. Avoiding some screaming is a good and positive thing. >> - time. Sifting through feedback from a small group is more manageable >> than having to go through bitchfests from a couple of hundred people. >> Additionally, open playtests will inevitably mean that people bitch on >> the newsgroup, the WW forums, various national forums, IRC, mailing >> lists, a few quick-ish real-time JOL games... That's a lot of places >> to try to manage, and LSJ obviously only has 24 hours available in a >> day and a family to look after too! > >See above. It would not take great amounts of time to post a card- or >mechanic idea at the site with attached comment-field or a forum- >thread, and then look throught the results. You don't think that responses from 100, 200, 500 people are going to take longer than responses from 30, 50? Really? How do you figure that? Proper critical thought takes time. If you're just going to glance through them without engaging serious critical thought, there's no point holding the whole exercise in the first place. Then, of course, if you overlook something that's mentioned in one of those forms and it turns out to be true, you have a nice recipe for "I told you so." People, even LSJ, will make mistakes. >> - some decisions are taken because they're right, not popular. e.g. >> grouping. Also, LSJ can potentially try out a set while leaking >> possible card rewrites/bans to a small group of playtesters. "Yeah, >> could you try out these new Inner Circle vamps? We're thinking of >> toning down PTO or banning it, so don't worry overly about that." > >It´s a very specific example you have here. You think? There have been plenty of changes (and a smaller number of bans) over time. If someone worries that some key feature of this new set is being rampaged by Imbued and War Ghouls, you don't think LSJ benefits from being able to confidentially mention that a change is in the works (in whatever detail), if he so chooses? Various of the changes that have happened over time have very definitely been playtested by some people. >> - not wanting every single difference between the final texts and what >> gets printed to be analyzed, with ensuing abuse being hurled at the >> layout editor or printers. "What? You gave her ani instead of ANI? >> You fucking suck. SACK HIM." > >I do not understand what you mean. Should there be a problem keeping >track of what should be printed because it was discussed on the >internet some months earlier? You do realise that, for example, vampires have been reprinted with the wrong capacity, or without a piece of special text, despite this having been established years before? Why? Because people make mistakes. People are human. It's not about "keeping track". Some hard-pressed employee has the truly frabjous joy of laying out cards, and sometimes they'll make mistakes, and sometimes these things do happen. How do we know these things happen? Because they've happened before, demonstrably so. People aren't perfect, whether you post something on the Internet in advance or not! >> Which isn't to say that the current system is necessarily optimal. >> >> - In the past, the create-a-card poll was well received - though I feel >> the actual options offered were a bit meh. (Also, long before that, >> there was a "Who's your favourite vampire to be printed?" which I >> think gave us Hesha.) A few more things like that wouldn't >> necessarily be bad. > >When was this? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/73dd70de17069147 was one thread about it a short while ago, with the original "Create a card" poll happening in early 2006. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3902108148cd01ad isn't quite what I remembered - it was selecting a card for promo cards. That was in 2000, from Steve Wieck. >> - Ideas have openly been sought for expansions (which I think gave us >> Kindred Most Wanted, from Matt Green), and some "pre-design" decisions >> were openly discussed (such as the composition of Final Nights). > >It has? I´ve never seen anything like that. That link from 2000 from Steve Wieck has the results of one round of discussion about what became Final Nights. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b99e9c376d4b5e4b has a re-post of the discussion of "V:TES After Gehenna", with suggestions for expansions sought. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b46ba8c7bb6e2340 is one response in that thread that was thought about and turned into a real expansion - Kindred Most Wanted. I'm not sure where you're looking if you've never seen opinions sought in this manner. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable.

On Oct 1, 2:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > so very secret? There is a great amount of planning put into each release. The best way to make sure that your plans fail is to make them public. >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? So that you can savor the sensation of the finished product. This is part of enjoying the game. It would be like a delicious cake. It is delicious when it is finished, but if you ate raw flour, raw eggs, sugar and baking soda, then you would say, "the sugar was okay, but the raw flour, raw eggs and baking soda sucked ass. Yuck! I would never eat that cake." >How about > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > make comments about? What do you think? See cake idea above, new ideas in a vacuum are generally not helpful. > In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > from ever being printed. Name a few cards that you think are "unplayable/too powerful/stupid". I would like to see which cards that you think playtesting failed. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Johannes Walch wrote: > Ben Peal schrieb: > > White Wolf/CCP does not want to publicly post its intellectual > > property in development in order to protect themselves from other > > companies who might steal their ideas or change their development or > > marketing strategies based on what White Wolf/CCP is doing. > > I don´t know, Ben. That might be true for a MMORG, but for a card game > that exists for 10+ years? Look at the new IP they are introducing > (which is mostly from WW background, so allready available in public): > is Magic going to make their Goblins Anarch because they had a sneak > preview of Twillight Rebellion? ;-) Why _wouldn't_ they steal the intellectual property? Do you really expect companies to play nice? Intellectual property also includes mechanics, btw. - Ben Peal

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > White Wolf/CCP does not want to publicly post its intellectual > > property in development in order to protect themselves from other > > companies who might steal their ideas or change their development or > > marketing strategies based on what White Wolf/CCP is doing. > > Ridiculus. Who would steal a VtES idea? "Yes, I see they are going to > make these aim-cards - I better steal that idea for my game", or what? You don't think another company that makes CCGs would be interested in seeing what other mechanics and ideas another CCG company is developing? Really? - Ben Peal

On 1 Okt, 15:06, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <862a9f21-fc3c-4006-9839-c926717a8...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >On 1 Okt, 10:33, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >I think White Wolf this far has shown great ability to not listen to > >people that shout. I don´t think it takes much of time to sift through > >some comments and judging which are good and which are just idiots. > > I'll comment here, but it applies to many of your other comments. > > You're confusing what WW should (and what LSJ probably would) do, and > what people would expect based on a so-called open playtest. There's a > huge gap. If you tout an open playtest, people will expect you to fix > cards and create cards in the way they say so - you wouldn't run an open > playtest and just ignore people, would you? Except, of course, you'd > have to - 90% of comments would be irrelevant or wrong, because that's > just how people are. Of course, people can accept that - except when > you ignore their feedback, because they're not in the 90%, that's where > other people are. It depends on what you mean about "open playtest". I think people will understand that their own individual opinion about a card will not be printed, but if 90 % of the community say "no, the imbued suck, don´t print them, do this and that instead", then maybe WW should care. > When holding an open playtest and ignoring the vast majority of what > people say (pretty much necessarily so, because people will say so much > and you can only do a small number of them, regardless of quality), > you're just making a rod for your own back. When you hold an "open playtest" you SHOULD ignore the vast majority, and only listen to the smart remarks. UNLESS the vast majority say the same thing! > >> - false expectations. If I've designed a bunch of Aim cards and had to > >> scrap them because they just weren't right, for some reason, people > >> will whine. > > >I´m not sure if I understand you here... If you design a bunch of bad > >cards, isn´t it good if you notice this before printing them, with a > >chance to make them better? > > Again, not the point. You pull something from the set, for good reasons > (can't quite balance it, it's just not working how you want, someone > comes up with a better idea that makes you think about a whole new > mechanic for the next set, whatever). > > People at this point will whine. If you're extra lucky, people will > whine and complain you're making them buy another set in the future. > "Oh look, they take the popular things and shove them in another set, > just to screw even more cash out of us." Add conspiracy theories to > taste. > > > You can do things for good reasons - for the best of reasons - and > people will still whine, because they see it from their metagame, not > the global game view that LSJ will obviously try to bear in mind. Why listen to the whiners? People whined about PTO for 10 years before LSJ banned it! And no, intelligent players know better than to just see to their local metagame. > >> - hysteria and nuance. When sending things to large groups of players, > >> there will be inevitable loss of nuance. That paragraph you wrote > >> about how this is just a brainstorming session? Lost. You're trying > >> out a half-dozen different ideas, but only intend to print one, maybe > >> two? No, you're definitely creating six massively overpowered cards > >> for the Sabbat, and the Camarilla are just fucked because LSJ hates > >> the Camarilla and why are you still buying this game you fool? > > >See above. Why should anyone care about comments like that? > > Because having a massive load of players bitching, screaming and fucked > off for no reason *isn't good for the game*. See the vast amount of > bitching that followed on from 7/7, for example. Does anyone really > want to live through that again? Really? It depends on who you are. I would care at all if my work was to design CCGs. It comes with the job. > Remember the screams about Victor Pelletier being so necessary, and how > Ector would personally need 50 copies, and so would each of his players? > Funny how that hasn't turned into a problem. No, I don´t. Everyone that plays tournaments has a bunch of Victor, what´s the problem? > Avoiding some screaming is a good and positive thing. > > >> - time. Sifting through feedback from a small group is more manageable > >> than having to go through bitchfests from a couple of hundred people. > >> Additionally, open playtests will inevitably mean that people bitch on > >> the newsgroup, the WW forums, various national forums, IRC, mailing > >> lists, a few quick-ish real-time JOL games... That's a lot of places > >> to try to manage, and LSJ obviously only has 24 hours available in a > >> day and a family to look after too! > > >See above. It would not take great amounts of time to post a card- or > >mechanic idea at the site with attached comment-field or a forum- > >thread, and then look throught the results. > > You don't think that responses from 100, 200, 500 people are going to > take longer than responses from 30, 50? Really? How do you figure > that? Proper critical thought takes time. If you're just going to > glance through them without engaging serious critical thought, there's > no point holding the whole exercise in the first place. Define "proper critical thought" please. I mean, it´s not like someone would post at 200-page thesis on a game mechanic. It would be more like "It sucks because Tremere already have Chantry" or "It would be broken together with Tortured Confession, add a pool cost". > Then, of course, if you overlook something that's mentioned in one of > those forms and it turns out to be true, you have a nice recipe for "I > told you so." People, even LSJ, will make mistakes. Yes, I have noticed that a couple of times :) > >> - some decisions are taken because they're right, not popular. e.g. > >> grouping. Also, LSJ can potentially try out a set while leaking > >> possible card rewrites/bans to a small group of playtesters. "Yeah, > >> could you try out these new Inner Circle vamps? We're thinking of > >> toning down PTO or banning it, so don't worry overly about that." > > >It´s a very specific example you have here. > > You think? There have been plenty of changes (and a smaller number of > bans) over time. If someone worries that some key feature of this new > set is being rampaged by Imbued and War Ghouls, you don't think LSJ > benefits from being able to confidentially mention that a change is in > the works (in whatever detail), if he so chooses? > > Various of the changes that have happened over time have very definitely > been playtested by some people. Still don´t see this as being a large problem. > >> - not wanting every single difference between the final texts and what > >> gets printed to be analyzed, with ensuing abuse being hurled at the > >> layout editor or printers. "What? You gave her ani instead of ANI? > >> You fucking suck. SACK HIM." > > >I do not understand what you mean. Should there be a problem keeping > >track of what should be printed because it was discussed on the > >internet some months earlier? > > You do realise that, for example, vampires have been reprinted with the > wrong capacity, or without a piece of special text, despite this having > been established years before? Why? Because people make mistakes. > People are human. It's not about "keeping track". Some hard-pressed > employee has the truly frabjous joy of laying out cards, and sometimes > they'll make mistakes, and sometimes these things do happen. How do we > know these things happen? Because they've happened before, demonstrably > so. > > People aren't perfect, whether you post something on the Internet in > advance or not! Yes, I have noticed these printing errors, and I do not understand them. I work in media. We print papers every day. Every article a journalist write is only read through of about 2-3 people (writer, editor, layout), and yet you seldom see printing errors. At White Wolf (and many other gaming companies), products just flood with weird errors - cards disappear from the printing sheet, ALL backsides of a set gets turned and so on. I don´t get it, but I sure get that it has nothing at all to do with what I´m talking about (letting players leave feedback on new cards before they are printed). > >> Which isn't to say that the current system is necessarily optimal. > > >> - In the past, the create-a-card poll was well received - though I feel > >> the actual options offered were a bit meh. (Also, long before that, > >> there was a "Who's your favourite vampire to be printed?" which I > >> think gave us Hesha.) A few more things like that wouldn't > >> necessarily be bad. > > >When was this? > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/73dd... > was one thread about it a short while ago, with the original "Create a > card" poll happening in early 2006. So, ONE card in 17 sets? > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3902... > isn't quite what I remembered - it was selecting a card for promo cards. > That was in 2000, from Steve Wieck. Wow. > >> - Ideas have openly been sought for expansions (which I think gave us > >> Kindred Most Wanted, from Matt Green), and some "pre-design" decisions > >> were openly discussed (such as the composition of Final Nights). > > >It has? I´ve never seen anything like that. > > That link from 2000 from Steve Wieck has the results of one round of > discussion about what became Final Nights. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b99e... > has a re-post of the discussion of "V:TES After Gehenna", with > suggestions for expansions sought. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b46b... > is one response in that thread that was thought about and turned into a > real expansion - Kindred Most Wanted. > > I'm not sure where you're looking if you've never seen opinions sought > in this manner. Compared to how it could be this is nothing.

On 1 Okt, 15:28, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Oct 1, 2:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > > enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > > so very secret? > > There is a great amount of planning put into each release. The best > way to make sure that your plans fail is to make them public. > > >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? > > So that you can savor the sensation of the finished product. This is > part of enjoying the game. It would be like a delicious cake. It is > delicious when it is finished, but if you ate raw flour, raw eggs, > sugar and baking soda, then you would say, "the sugar was okay, but > the raw flour, raw eggs and baking soda sucked ass. Yuck! I would > never eat that cake." I really don´t see what this has to do with VtES. Cake tastes good. Nights of Reckoning tasted like shit. > >How about > > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > > make comments about? What do you think? > > See cake idea above, new ideas in a vacuum are generally not helpful. Vacuum? What vacuum? > > In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > > from ever being printed. > > Name a few cards that you think are "unplayable/too powerful/stupid". > I would like to see which cards that you think playtesting failed. See this thread http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/470ec932599d938b/e5e5b90922ffbe3a

[ quoted text not captured ] No, not ideas that are so specific that they only could be used in VTES.

In message <e7737401-3266-46a1...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Cards that >are weak tend to not get much attention, unless they are incredibly, >obviously weak (you should have seen the *original* version of >Tourtured Confessions...). 'Cause cards that are weak don't inspire >much attention, and unless they are measurably weak on paper, they >probably aren't going to see much play in playtest. Also, there are cards that are just *hard* to playtest, because they're hard to play. I for one would not have wanted to be in a position where I thought From A Sinking Ship was too powerful / too weak, and trying to prove it. You could go through numerous games without necessarily being able to play it usefully. As well as that, you get the cards that are much more specific on what decks you need to make. Preternatural Strength (for example) could be tried in a wide range of Potence decks. 3 copies for a bit of thumping in a Giovanni deck? Sure, why not? But it could also go in my Brujah deck, or a Guruhi deck, or maybe I could try it in a POT/PRO deck (actually, that sounds fun), or I have some off-clan Potence in this other deck so why the heck not? There could be loads of different decks for it. However, this card requiring a Toreador requires me to build a good Toreador deck, which I might or might not already have. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <fca2dd1e-6b46-48d6...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. >About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable. Certainly there have been poor cards in some sets, but you seem to be the only one making such a broad assertion. Could you take Lords of the Night and explain which half of the library cards you think are pretty much unplayable? Not just vague sweeps of the hand, could you list 40% of the library cards that are pretty much unplauable? To make a stat on "every set", you should probably repeat this for Sword of Caine and Twilight Rebellion. [ quoted text not captured ]

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > You don't think another company that makes CCGs would be interested > > in seeing what other mechanics and ideas another CCG company is > > developing? Really? > > No, not ideas that are so specific that they only could be used in > VTES. You mean like tapping? - Ben Peal

On Oct 1, 9:26 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. I gotta say, I'm not particularly concerned with what you are getting sick and tired of. But go on... > About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable.- Really? Please expound on, say, the last set printed, and how half of that set is pretty much unplayable. -Peter

On Oct 1, 10:09 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I really don´t see what this has to do with VtES. Cake tastes good. > Nights of Reckoning tasted like shit. We realize that you don't like the Imbued. The mechanics for the set were solid. The vast majoirity of the set is completely playable. You seem to be confusing "I don't like" with "badly designed". -Peter

ben...@gmail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Like I said, if you have ground-breaking new game, of course. But in VTES no revolutionary new mechanics will be introduced afaik.

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Also there seems to be confusion about what "good design" means. There is a technical term "good design", describing compatibility with the game, preserving a good power curve and so on. But other people seem to say "good design" when they are evaluating how well a set is received by the audience (good design =~ popularity). So for example NoR was a mostly good design from a technical standpoint (although I still don´t like tables where one players has 3-6 cards on every one of his 6 minions) but from a marketing (estimating buyers reception) perspective it seems pretty terrible to me.

On Oct 1, 2:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Here's a very rough synopsis of previous playtesting: WW selects a subset of the playerbase comprised primarily of individuals that have previously demonstrated an understanding of rules/game balance/critical thinking and an interest in participating in such talks - including people who consistently post well-thought- out and coherent analysis to a variety of forums and the NG. They don't select -every- player that meets this criteria, but select enough of them to form a manageable sized pool. Not every person approached is able to participate, but many of them do. Those individuals then form playtesting groups out of their playgroups as best serves their purpose, coordinating and summarizing their findings into single reports (as opposed to each member of a group submitting their own thoughts.) A lot of these groups include multiple people out of that "experienced and analytical" subset. Sets are then tested through multiple iterations, with each iteration providing WW with a dozen or more lengthy, coherent responses and analyses from the various groups. Alternately, you can do open playtesting, where instead of the above, you have hundreds and hundreds of replies, many of them fragmentary, including a number of posts by players with limited experience, poor understanding of the rules, and little to no concept of game balance or critical thinking. Personally, I'd rather not see a playtesting environment where the design team has to read through comments made by players who just picked up the game a month ago, or whose group plays with nothing but variant rules (like the 4CL groups that still exist), or who just the day before posting 'I think this card sucks ass' was asking 'so how does intercept work?' and waste hours of time trying to go through threads looking for the nuggets of useful feedback among the chaff. And beyond a certain point, 'more playtesting' isn't helpful - there's a point where the usefulness of having more people providing commentary is offset by both redundancy and the time needed to process the comments. -John Flournoy

On Oct 1, 6:29 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 1 Okt, 10:33, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > - false expectations (2) - because I've just made the best suggestion > > EVER to make Hag's Wrinkles better, LSJ will obviously include it in > > the set exactly as written. > > See above. White Wolf should not focus on what a certain individual > thinks. However, open playtesting forces White Wolf to do exactly that, only hundreds and hundreds of times over. Because if you have open commentary by all, the WW design team has to read each and every person's comments to determine if their opinion is a useful one, as well as to figure out what the general consensus is. You can't say 'most of the playtesters thought this card is too weak' unless you actually have read all the posts to tally how people felt. Or to save the design team that time and effort and eliminate them having to read every post in a thread to find the consensus, you could appoint people to effectively correlate and condense the findings of multiple folks into useful feedback, having those folks tell White Wolf "hey, the twenty of us all felt this card was awful because of reasons X Y and Z". ...which is exactly how playtesting has been run to date, actually - with appointed individuals providing condensed analysis from a larger group of playtesters who have had a chance to review and actively test the cards over several months. It's just that the 'larger group' has been a managable set of players, instead of 'all of them everywhere.' -John Flournoy

On Oct 1, 11:57 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > So for example NoR was a mostly good design from a technical standpoint > (although I still don´t like tables where one players has 3-6 cards on > every one of his 6 minions) but from a marketing (estimating buyers > reception) perspective it seems pretty terrible to me. I dunno about that second part - I seem to recall Oscar saying that the print run of the set had sold out, or nearly so. That sounds like a pretty good design from a marketing perspective to me. John Eno

On Oct 1, 8:55 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <fca2dd1e-6b46-48d6-a322-aebd1c679...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. > >About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable. > > Certainly there have been poor cards in some sets, but you seem to be > the only one making such a broad assertion. > > Could you take Lords of the Night and explain which half of the library > cards you think are pretty much unplayable? Not just vague sweeps of > the hand, could you list 40% of the library cards that are pretty much > unplauable? To make a stat on "every set", you should probably repeat > this for Sword of Caine and Twilight Rebellion. And make sure that your definition of 'unplayable' also covers: Unplayable in Limited/draft/sealed format Unplayable by players who have small collections of cards, i.e. folks who have bought a few decks and boosters and don't have 20 copies of every card. In other words, saying 'I'd never play card X when I can play card Y instead' loses a lot of weight when card Y is either no longer in print, has a higher rarity or is hard to acquire through trading due to 'everyone wants this in multiples'. (Mind you, that still leaves more than a few cards that are very weak, but some of the cards often cited as useless are not so useless to players with smaller collections and/or in limited formats.) > -- > James Coupe -John Flournoy

On Oct 1, 11:57 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Also there seems to be confusion about what "good design" means. Well, for my money, "good design" specifically refers to how the set fits into the game as a whole, from a play balance perspective. > But other people seem to > say "good design" when they are evaluating how well a set is received by > the audience (good design =~ popularity). Well, I could certainly see how someone could mean that. > So for example NoR was a mostly good design from a technical > standpoint Agreed. > (although I still don´t like tables where one players has 3-6 cards on > every one of his 6 minions) Agreed. I do, in fact, find the Imbued kind of a pain in the ass to play or play against, 'cause of all the crap on the table. But still, I play them once and a while, and am totally ok with other people playing as long as they do so in a timely manner. > but from a marketing (estimating buyers > reception) perspective it seems pretty terrible to me. See, I don't know that that is actually the case. I have no reason to believe that the set didn't sell well. And there certainly are some really loud critics of the set, still. But in terms of the not internet, indications are that they were pretty popular when arguably wildly overpowered, and still reasonably popular post the necessary fixes. -Peter

On Oct 1, 9:09 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 1 Okt, 15:28, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 1, 2:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > The discussion about if or if not White Wolf playtest the new sets > > > enough on various threads lead me to a question - why are the new sets > > > so very secret? > > > There is a great amount of planning put into each release. The best > > way to make sure that your plans fail is to make them public. > > > >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? > > > So that you can savor the sensation of the finished product. This is > > part of enjoying the game. It would be like a delicious cake. It is > > delicious when it is finished, but if you ate raw flour, raw eggs, > > sugar and baking soda, then you would say, "the sugar was okay, but > > the raw flour, raw eggs and baking soda sucked ass. Yuck! I would > > never eat that cake." > > I really don´t see what this has to do with VtES. Cake tastes good. > Nights of Reckoning tasted like shit. Nights of Reckoning was an excellently designed set which showed both creativity and due dillegence. It was only after 12 months of real- time play that one (1!!) card was shown to be over powered. Your opinion on NoR is subjective and not very-well heeled in basis. > > >How about > > > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > > > make comments about? What do you think? > > > See cake idea above, new ideas in a vacuum are generally not helpful. > > Vacuum? What vacuum? Solely posting a mechanic without the relavent cards is useless (i.e. the anarch mechanism without anarch cards) > > > In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > > > from ever being printed. > > > Name a few cards that you think are "unplayable/too powerful/stupid". > > I would like to see which cards that you think playtesting failed. > > See this threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t... Target Vitals is neither unplayable, nor too powerful, nor stupid. It is far, far from broken, and I have played it ALOT. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > Kushiel schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] > Depends on the size of your print run. Not if you take your idea of "estimating buyers' reception" at face value, since that estimation factors directly into the size of the print run.

Well, here is a perspective from a newer player of the game who was done open playtesting for a CCG, namely Shadowfist. I playtested for the game in both of its phases, the owned-by-a- company phase and a owned-by-a-group-of-players phase. The first was not secretive, but you had to sign something. For the second, it kinda became a free-for-all. PT was never entirely open, but the majority of the player base participated and knew what was going on and discussed it ad nauseum. The major problems with open testing were twofold. One, tons of light, very little heat in terms of comments. When we went to phase 2 the design team tried to set up a system for rating cards, and it kinda worked, but it still seemed that subjective considerations frequently trumped game design parameters. Lots of different perspectives, but lots of assessments not based on either cohesiveness of the set or how cards and strategies fit into the overall design of the game. Two, the amount of comments was staggering, and everyone wanted to be heard and considered. I think part of the reason that the last set for the game has taken sooo long to put together, and why some of the design team resigned, was because of the playtest format. Too much info, too many personalities, and too many tangents. It did not help that playtest sets were enormous and all playtest groups got the entire wad of cards. I PTed for two sets, but just kinda lurked after that. I found that my comments got buried in an avalanche of disagreements and verbose comments not formatted to talk about game design. While I think the current VTES playtest system could be improved, I don't think open PT is the way to go. Cheers, John

On Oct 1, 12:17 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dunno about that second part - I seem to recall Oscar saying that > the print run of the set had sold out, or nearly so. That sounds like > a pretty good design from a marketing perspective to me. Be careful with that; when a game company says that a game is "sold out" (or nearly so), they're talking about the quantities in their warehouses. That doesn't reflect how much of that product is sitting on the shelves in distributor warehouses or retail store racks. Jason

On Oct 1, 6:37 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > Why _wouldn't_ they steal the intellectual property? Do you really > expect companies to play nice? Intellectual property also includes > mechanics, btw. Not directly relevant, but as a side note, I'm constantly amazed at how many ideas aren't stolen. Magic didn't invent colorcoded rarity on their cards but has made great use of what should be a standard in the industry, for instance. Magic's lead designer writes a weekly column in which he goes into all sorts of fascinating aspects of designing for a CCG. I find it inspiring and I: don't play Magic currently; am more suited to development than design, which, while very similar in some ways, are distinct in important ones. Seems to me it's always a good move to see what one's competitors are doing that's popular/moneymaking and try to find ways to apply that to one's own game, whether it be in marketing, design, customer relations/ service/support, card appearance, set attributes (rarity, size, number), etc. Magic just made significant changes in set size and rarity, adding another level of rarity, in what they think is a move that will help them make more money. Now, not everything is going to work as well for everybody, certainly the demographics of the player bases for Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and V:TES are very different, but I just don't get the sense that the industry as a whole really studies the competition nearly as much as it should.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> Ben Peal wrote: > >>> You don't think another company that makes CCGs would be interested > >>> in seeing what other mechanics and ideas another CCG company is > >>> developing? Really? > >> No, not ideas that are so specific that they only could be used in > >> VTES. > > > You mean like tapping? > > Like I said, if you have ground-breaking new game, of course. But in > VTES no revolutionary new mechanics will be introduced afaik. I don't see any reason why CCP should hand over its developmental information to other companies. - Ben Peal

On Oct 1, 4:29 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I think White Wolf this far has shown great ability to not listen to > people that shout. I don´t think it takes much of time to sift through > some comments and judging which are good and which are just idiots. It takes a lot of time. Furthermore, idiots are occasionally right and elite playtesters are occasionally wrong. So, you either go through everything with a fine tooth comb or to save time start tuning out less helpful playtesters, defeating the purpose of having lots of playtesters. > Maybe my choice of words was wrong. "Comments" or "Thoughts" or > "Feedback" then, not actual testing. Useless. While it's not useless to have quality playtesters occasionally make thought only posts and it's quite useful to have some brainstorming, not actually playing with cards is not playtesting. Chances of reading a card and being right about how it works or how good it is low, extremely low when looking at better cards. In my playtesting of about 6 CCGs, I've sent comments along the lines of "why would I ever play this card?" and expected to be listened to because proving something sucks is terribly inefficient. Any time I ever said something like "this is broken" and then didn't actually have someone in my playtest group build the deck, I was just wasting everyone's time. > > - false expectations. If I've designed a bunch of Aim cards and had to > > scrap them because they just weren't right, for some reason, people > > will whine. > > I´m not sure if I understand you here... If you design a bunch of bad > cards, isn´t it good if you notice this before printing them, with a > chance to make them better? Cards get scrapped for a variety of reasons. Magic's designers generate too many mechanics for their sets and have to set some aside. Card art can kill cards. There may be some marketing or legal decision. The rules may not support a concept. > See above. Why should anyone care about comments like that? Someone writes a 10 paragraph playtest report. Five of the paragraphs are about results from play and how ABC was broken, XYZ was much better than expected, MNO was too confusing to understand. The other five are rants about how my favorite character should be a card since all of those nobodies were made into cards, about how Dominate is broken, about how much junk exists that should be elevated. You are giving people both too much and too little credit. > See above. It would not take great amounts of time to post a card- or > mechanic idea at the site with attached comment-field or a forum- > thread, and then look throught the results. You read this newsgroup, right? How many posts have people made about DI? PTO? Anarch Revolt? Think about wading through people's thoughts on every single card in a set (well, not every, since uninteresting cards tend to get ignored). > I do not understand what you mean. Should there be a problem keeping > track of what should be printed because it was discussed on the > internet some months earlier? People can't keep track of what gets e-mailed to playtest lists that have only about a dozen active posters. > > - In the past, the create-a-card poll was well received - though I feel > > the actual options offered were a bit meh. (Also, long before that, > > there was a "Who's your favourite vampire to be printed?" which I > > think gave us Hesha.) A few more things like that wouldn't > > necessarily be bad. > > When was this? I don´t remember. It has happened twice? This is kind > of the thing I´m after. And, something that was missed that was posted on the internet "months" ago. > > Won't happen. There are plenty of cards that have taken months and > > years to exploit properly. There are also plenty of cards that are > > taken as being the best thing since sliced bread, but in real, sober > > play, they just don't work like that. > > No, not totally prevent, but I think it would limit the amount of > unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards. A much more effective way to limit bad cards is to have professional playtesters, a highly organized playtest process with a playtest coordinator, clear direction, a good system of communication, and to have plenty of time. Might mean nothing to you, but I think it's an apt comparison. I was brought in as were some other playtesters to help design a CCG expansion. The company had a design file with ideas gathered from various sources, mostly from public forums. Yes, people's posted card ideas were actually noticed by someone. Our first task was to mine that file of something like a 1000 card ideas. All together, we thought maybe 50-80 ideas were worth looking at, not using, just looking at as ideas for cards. Figure that's about the level of signal to noise you will get from the public - less than 10% of what is said by some random person in the player base is worth listening to. There are a lot of reasons for this. A major one is that lots and lots of people who play CCGs don't think in the way that you want out of designers and developers. Lots don't think in terms of the good of the game but in terms of making something they like better or screwing something they don't like. They don't think in terms of how something fits into a greater whole. They don't analyze the numbers. They don't analyze the metagame impact. They don't know the rules well enough. They don't want to do the actual tedious work of playtesting. And, it is tedious. Once I started playtesting and then saw the comments of people bitching and moaning about how awesome it must be to be a playtester and how they would be awesome playtesters if only given a chance, I started wishing everyone was forced to playtest at least once to see just how annoying it is when done correctly. Sure, there are some fun things about it, mostly what I remember is getting to play hideously broken decks that led to cards getting fixed before print or getting to play unlimited copies of ultrarares (before you found out that they were going to be ultrarares and that the player base was going to be shafted since you needed the cards to compete at the highest levels). People have an overinflated view of their importance/brilliance. There are plenty of opinions I form on reading cards that don't prove to be true. There's plenty of playtesting I've done that was insufficient. There are all sorts of cards I wish I had spoken up about to make stronger but lacked the time. There's plenty of rules questions I can't answer even for a game in which our group's timing rules became the timing rules in the game because the game came out without actual timing rules. The facts of the matter are that niche CCGs don't have better testing because of money, i.e. having professionals playtest, and that the best CCG playtesting in the world - Magic's - still sees mistakes made. That stuff is discovered later that wasn't caught by playtesters is not only inevitable, but it's desirable from a company's standpoint. CCGs are not supposed to be solvable. Their attraction lies in the fact that there is an infinite amount of discovery.

In message <b53b2346-2950-4039...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >On 1 Okt, 15:06, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> People aren't perfect, whether you post something on the Internet in >> advance or not! > >Yes, I have noticed these printing errors, and I do not understand >them. I work in media. I'd think you'd have a greater understanding of not wanting to piss off the average punter, then. You keep saying "Ignore the whines." The point is, as a company, you don't want to generate them in the first place. Many researchers, for example, would not want people to see the first draft of a paper before their editors, sub-editors, supervisors, peer reviewers and so on have had a chance to take it apart and refine it. Similar issues here. >We print papers every day. Every article a >journalist write is only read through of about 2-3 people (writer, >editor, layout), and yet you seldom see printing errors. At White Wolf >(and many other gaming companies), products just flood with weird >errors - cards disappear from the printing sheet, ALL backsides of a >set gets turned and so on. Largely, most gaming companies survive on a relative shoe-string. (Contrary to popular belief, most game company employees are not rolling on a big pile of cash extracted from your gaming group.) People multi- task across a huge range of jobs (see the WW blog for just a few examples - talk to game company employees for others), people work to tight deadlines, temps and interns are summoned to help out on <whatever>. The breadth of work undertaken by many such companies is pretty different to many other, relatively specialized companies, and with a relatively small staff, people can get thrown from pillar to post in no time at all. That, and people are human and make mistakes. > I don�t get it, but I sure get that it has >nothing at all to do with what I�m talking about (letting players >leave feedback on new cards before they are printed). Yet what I detailed is a pretty much inevitable consequence. People will see and complain about the errors, in excruciating detail. >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/73dd... >> was one thread about it a short while ago, with the original "Create a >> card" poll happening in early 2006. > >So, ONE card in 17 sets? Yes, you do realise I was saying the current system isn't optimal (because I explicitly wrote that) and was pointing to things people had enjoyed which might be done more of? >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b46b... >> is one response in that thread that was thought about and turned into a >> real expansion - Kindred Most Wanted. >> >> I'm not sure where you're looking if you've never seen opinions sought >> in this manner. > >Compared to how it could be this is nothing. But in your world: - customers being pissed off is not a problem - ensuing stress for (e.g.) LSJ is not a problem - going over hundreds of pieces of feedback is not a problem and will take no time - editors and staff are perfect. Compared to how the real world is, your expectations are unrealistic. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <083cdb27-977e-495f...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, sul...@aol.com writes: >And, it is tedious. Once I started playtesting and then saw the >comments of people bitching and moaning about how awesome it must be >to be a playtester and how they would be awesome playtesters if only >given a chance, I started wishing everyone was forced to playtest at >least once to see just how annoying it is when done correctly. Yes, this part is particularly problematic. Even with the (necessary) step of trying to identify people who are going to be useful, there's no real way of communicating what testing involves until they actually do it, for real. My experience on a MUD was that players will also often overestimate: 1) their ability to test 2) the value of their testing. The MUD kept fairly good reports of reports filed, reports implemented/denied, and so on, so you could keep a fairly crude check on what players were doing, and then follow it up with more in-depth conversations (with players, coders etc. as necessary). In any number of cases, the people co-ordinating the playtesters would check up on people who didn't appear to be doing all that much. They'd wildly overestimate the amount of bugs they'd filed, the amount of work they'd done, the conversations they'd had with creators, and so on. They possibly were doing lots of playing and having fun, but weren't doing the testing. The people *actually* doing the useful testing had to put in no end of hard work, trying things out, filing reports, having discussions on a given bug/suggestion, trying out the fixes, iterating over this, and so on. And were, obviously, in a small minority of those who ever applied to be playtesters. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Not knowing how the gaming industry works, I wonder: does White Wolf really care? I mean, they've sold their product at that point, right? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] The argument isn't to "hand over developmental information to other companies," it is to hand it over to the public at large via the player base, under the premise that the players accessing the information is going to have a positive effect. The side effect that other companies will have access to the information is assumed to not be problem. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is disingenuous to represent the argument as "handing out the information *to* the other companies, as opposed to handing it out to players. White Wolf could, for example, hand their developmental information to other companies and still not open playtests to the public. I agree that there is no reason they should do this. No one is arguing that they should do this. -dc

On 1 Okt, 15:55, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <fca2dd1e-6b46-48d6-a322-aebd1c679...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. > >About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable. > > Certainly there have been poor cards in some sets, but you seem to be > the only one making such a broad assertion. > > Could you take Lords of the Night and explain which half of the library > cards you think are pretty much unplayable? Yes, I think I could, if I bothered. But just check yourself - which cards see play in your own playgroup? Which cards turn up in decks at the TWD-archive? I bet it´s about half of the (non reprint) cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] Cards that don´t see play anywhere except in limited format I count as pretty much unplayable. How many times do you buy a booster and find a rare you don´t want? Pretty often I say. Why is it like that? Why not less wallpaper, more good cards?

[ quoted text not captured ] Solid? When is it solid? When you try to explain in for a beginner? No. When every game timed because one player took 75 % of the game time just by moving around 50 cards on the table? Maybe.

Howdy, > >I´m getting sick and tired of this "slip throught the cracks"-talk. > >About half of every sets library cards is pretty much unplayable. > > Certainly there have been poor cards in some sets, but you seem to be > the only one making such a broad assertion. > > Could you take Lords of the Night and explain which half of the library > cards you think are pretty much unplayable? Not just vague sweeps of > the hand, could you list 40% of the library cards that are pretty much > unplauable? To make a stat on "every set", you should probably repeat > this for Sword of Caine and Twilight Rebellion. Here's an easy starting point. TR only has 60 cards, so it shouldn't take long to check off the 50% that are 'unplayable', especially with the handy list below: Crypt Clan Clifton Derrik Brujah Jack Drake Brujah Marguerite Foccart Brujah Anarch Convert Caitiff Andy Caitiff Dirk Caitiff Calvin Cleaver Gangrel Jacob Fermor Gangrel T.J. Gangrel Antoine, The Lost Malkavian Sean Rycek Malkavian Toby Nosferatu Topaz Nosferatu Laecanus Toreador Lin Jun Toreador Preston Varrick Tremere Tarautas Tremere Juniper Ventrue Louis Fortier Ventrue Reverend Adams (ADV) Ventrue Library Rarity Anarch Manifesto, An C Anonymous Freight C Baseball Bat C Blade Clot R Blood Turnip R Chameleon R Club Illusion R Constant Revolution R CrimethInc. C Crypt's Sons R Detect Authority C X Elixir of Distillation C Exclusion Principle C Failsafe R Final Loosening R Framing, The R Garibaldi-Meucci Museum R Grey Thorne R Haven Hunting C Hell-for-Leather C Keystone Kine C Lam Into C Libertas C Monkey Wrench C No Confidence C Open War R Patsy R Piper R Poacher's Hunting Ground R Power of All C Power of One C Revolutionary Council C Shattering R Shoulder Drop C Smear Campaign R Stealing Years R Steely Tenacity C Twilight Camp R World's a Canvas, The R Zip Line C Have at it, as...@hotmail.com (that's what you look like to me in Google - my imagination has been running wild filling in the ellipses). I'm really interested to see which cards you're talking about. I've even spotted you one (marked with an 'X') to get things rolling. Alex

On 1 Okt, 19:56, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <b53b2346-2950-4039-81ac-51a79b73e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >So, ONE card in 17 sets? > > Yes, you do realise I was saying the current system isn't optimal > (because I explicitly wrote that) and was pointing to things people had > enjoyed which might be done more of? Yes, I realise this, but I think you mainly try to defend everything WW has done as very good and "people make errors" and so on. > >Compared to how it could be this is nothing. > > But in your world: > > - customers being pissed off is not a problem > - ensuing stress for (e.g.) LSJ is not a problem > - going over hundreds of pieces of feedback is not a problem and will > take no time > - editors and staff are perfect. > > Compared to how the real world is, your expectations are unrealistic. I think it would be nice making "the world" (the game) better, that´s all. Some cards are still broken, and some cards are still to bad to see play or too complex. Less of that, more goodies, I say. I think some kind of open playtesting/feedback would help.

Kushiel schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Depends on the size of your print run. Anything will sell out once it is small enough. Also V:TES probably lost players who were annoyed with NoR, those are constant sales not coming in anymore. But yes, it�s hard to say. Also the big ripple it caused in the community might have been a good thing: any publicity is good publicity (although I am not sure if that is always true).

[ quoted text not captured ] They've sold that particular product. Thing is, orders for one set (from distributors, that is) are based on the performance and purchase history of past sets. So, if you're a distributor and the past two sets sold out from your ordered stock and made you a bunch of money? You'll order a good amount of the next set, even though you can't know how it'll sell. If WW prints it fairly small, they'll then sell out. If the past two sets were wildly unpopular, and your orders declined and you've still got a bunch of product? You'll order small on the next set, and WW is not likely to sell out. So WW probably doesn't care, in the short term, whether player reception of NoR has an impact - they've already sold it. But I'm fairly certain they care in the long run, where folks order or don't order future sets based on the reaction that NoR got. (This, by the way, is one of the factors that effectively killed Rolling Thunder as a release model: The first two or three mini-sets to come in off the pipe all got advance-ordered by retailers and distributors who knew nothing about them as if they'd sell just like any other expansion up to that point, as opposed to at about one-third the rate, since they were about one-third the size. When all that over-ordered product sat on the shelves, or was horribly over-ordered by customers in turn, the whole thing was proclaimed a dismal failure.) - D.J.

In article <b14b232e-26d5-48a2...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Cards that don�t see play anywhere except in limited format I count as > pretty much unplayable. How many times do you buy a booster and find a > rare you don�t want? Pretty often I say. Why is it like that? Why not > less wallpaper, more good cards? Give me a list. Take Twilight Rebellion. I can think of, maybe, 3 or 4 wallpapery cards (and most of those are wallpapery 'cause I'm yet to think about them hard enough to figure out something good to do with them) in the set. The vast majority of them are totally solid cards for many different strategies. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <f9188455-dc2c-4959...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Yes, I think I could, if I bothered. You are the one claiming that 50% of each set is wallpaper. You are being given the opportunity to illustrate this. Yet you decline. This does not help your argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6c77ed4b-053a-449a...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Solid? When is it solid? When you try to explain in for a beginner? You can't judge every mechanic on "is it easy to explain to a beginner". Some parts of a game need to be for advanced players. Otherwise, the game stagnates. *No* part of VTES is easy to explain to a beginner. Yeah, The Imbued are more complicated than most parts. So you know how you deal with that? Don't introduce beginners to The Imbued till they already know how the rest of the game works. > No. When every game timed because one player took 75 % of the game > time just by moving around 50 cards on the table? Maybe. Lots of things can do that. I agree that someone playing the Imbued can play slowly. Which is, indeed, irritating. But people playing not the imbued can, and will, do the same thing (the vast majority of the irritatingly slow play I have experienced in this game does *not* come from people playing the Imbued. Usually, it is people being incredibly irritating in trying to strike deals. That have nothing at all to do with the actual mechanics of the game). [ quoted text not captured ]

Well seance "as" won't do it, I'll take a stab. I'll be using the X that wumpus used. > Howdy, [ quoted text not captured ] X Reverend Adams (ADV) Ventrue: Bad but not useless > Library Rarity X Anarch Manifesto, An C: crap from what I can tell > Anonymous Freight C > Baseball Bat C > Blade Clot R > Blood Turnip R > Chameleon R > Club Illusion R > Constant Revolution R > CrimethInc. C > Crypt's Sons R > Detect Authority C X Elixir of Distillation C: Asstastic X Exclusion Principle C: Not useless just kinda cornercase > Failsafe R > Final Loosening R > Framing, The R > Garibaldi-Meucci Museum R > Grey Thorne R > Haven Hunting C > Hell-for-Leather C > Keystone Kine C > Lam Into C > Libertas C > Monkey Wrench C X No Confidence C: Again not useless it's just weak > Open War R X Patsy R: If you can pass this you have some better options ( Reckless Agitation, FireBrand, Con Boon) > Piper R X Poacher's Hunting Ground R: ASS > Power of All C > Power of One C > Revolutionary Council C > Shattering R X Shoulder Drop C: Meh X Smear Campaign R: Could be usefull but Meh! > Stealing Years R > Steely Tenacity C > Twilight Camp R X World's a Canvas, The R: 2 blood is 2 much. > Zip Line C > > Have at it, as...@hotmail.com (that's what you look like to me in > Google - my imagination has been running wild filling in the > ellipses). I'm really interested to see which cards you're talking > about. I've even spotted you one (marked with an 'X') to get things > rolling. > > Alex 8 of the 60 cards IMO are bad or underpowered, that's 7.5% of the set. Hmm...

Quickbeam wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > I don't see any reason why CCP should hand over its developmental > > information to other companies. > > The argument isn't to "hand over developmental information to other > companies," it is to hand it over to the public at large via the > player base, under the premise that the players accessing the > information is going to have a positive effect. The original post asks why playtesting is secret. The desire to not divulge proprietary information in a competitve market is a very significant reason, and in my opinion is the most important one. Playtest groups sign non-disclosure agreements that have legal ramifications if they are violated, because the company considers divulging that information to be potentially harmful and costly. If there was no potential harm to the company, they wouldn't bother with the lawyers. > The side effect that other companies will have access to the information > is assumed to not be problem. One can't separate it from the equation. > I don't know if this is true or not, but it is disingenuous to represent the > argument as "handing out the information *to* the other companies, as > opposed to handing it out to players. There's no difference. By making playtesting public, the information is made available to other companies. > White Wolf could, for example, hand their developmental information to > other companies and still not open playtests to the public. Sure, but White Wolf (well, CCP now) can't hand their developmental information to the public without handing it to other companies. - Ben Peal

On Oct 2, 7:58 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > My experience on a MUD was that players will also often overestimate: > > The people *actually* doing the useful testing had to put in no end of > hard work, trying things out, filing reports, having discussions on a > given bug/suggestion, trying out the fixes, iterating over this, and so > on. And were, obviously, in a small minority of those who ever applied > to be playtesters. Although somewhat off topic, this is so so true from my experience of running a MUD over a number of years. Getting players to test new areas was a nightmare, most of them would just run around having run rather than actually testing all the exits worked, keywords all worked, mobs reset etc... etc... The number of players actually able to test was very small, although it's nice to know that your new area / skill / new thing is cool and players like it, it's also important to know that it actually works properly which is a different test entirely. Having done a bit of game and card game testing, actual testing is damn hard work and mostly a thankless task. That most releases in VtES work out fine with hundreds of cards being played by thousands of clever and devious people is a testament to how much work the designers and play testers actually put in to getting it right. Simon

Howdy Pullen, On Oct 1, 6:19 pm, Pullen <mattp3...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well seance "as" won't do it, I'll take a stab. I'll be using the X > that wumpus used. Thanks for playing! I'm pretty much in agreement with your evaluations... [ quoted text not captured ] I dunno about this one. I looked at this and immediately built a deck around it. Seems very powerful in a weenie pre (only) stealth bleeder based on Undue Influence. Haven't tried it out yet, but I can't see how bleeds of 3 (that double as bloat) at 3 stealth are anything but good. (Power of One and Club Illusion round out the bleed and stealth.) > > Anonymous Freight C > > Baseball Bat C > > Blade Clot R > > Blood Turnip R > > Chameleon R > > Club Illusion R > > Constant Revolution R > > CrimethInc. C > > Crypt's Sons R > > Detect Authority C > > X Elixir of Distillation C: Asstastic Indeed, there was a whole thread about trying to use it. That eventually gave up. > X Exclusion Principle C: Not useless just kinda cornercase Yeah, seems like Con Boon is generally just going to be better. > > Failsafe R > > Final Loosening R > > Framing, The R > > Garibaldi-Meucci Museum R > > Grey Thorne R > > Haven Hunting C > > Hell-for-Leather C > > Keystone Kine C > > Lam Into C > > Libertas C > > Monkey Wrench C > > X No Confidence C: Again not useless it's just weak > > > Open War R > > X Patsy R: If you can pass this you have some better options > ( Reckless Agitation, FireBrand, Con Boon) I don't think it's unplayable, though. It could be good in a deck with 'marginal' Barony. You take a Baron action, and use that and some sort of push to Patsy an opposing title off the board before it can be used to remove your title. And you hit 'em for a bonus 2 pool. Seems like it might even be a decent include, to the degree that any Baron deck is 'decent'. > > Piper R > > X Poacher's Hunting Ground R: ASS Really? Seems like it could be good if your meta has a lot of HG usage. > > Power of All C > > Power of One C > > Revolutionary Council C > > Shattering R > > X Shoulder Drop C: Meh > X Smear Campaign R: Could be usefull but Meh! > > > Stealing Years R > > Steely Tenacity C > > Twilight Camp R > > X World's a Canvas, The R: 2 blood is 2 much. I could see it as a chaser to Banishment (at dom), and both the obf and vic are useable, but yeah, too expensive, really. > > Zip Line C > > > Have at it, as...@hotmail.com (that's what you look like to me in > > Google - my imagination has been running wild filling in the > > ellipses). I'm really interested to see which cards you're talking > > about. I've even spotted you one (marked with an 'X') to get things > > rolling. > > > Alex > > 8 of the 60 cards IMO are bad or underpowered, that's 7.5% of the set. > Hmm... I count 10 on your list, which is 16.6% of 60. I can't grant Anarch Manifesto, and several of the other 'meh' cards are hardly unplayable. And even if we were to grant them honorary 'unplayability', it's still only 9/60, which is 15%. Where are the other 35% hiding? Inquiring minds wanna know, Alex

Kushiel schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Good point Jason. They should care John, because a good relationship with your retail chain is important for continued success of your product line. We are selling NoR at much less than any other V:TES product but still no one ordered a single box in months.

I see no point doing this with a set that was released so recently and is about anarchs. But here is a list from LotN (which is a VERY good set compared to, say, NoR) AK-47 R xAgent of Power C Ambulance R xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 Army of Apparitions C/PR xAutonomic Mastery U xBestow Vigor R The Black Throne R Blithe Acceptance C/PS2 Blood Awakening C/PA3 xBloodlust R xBrute Force C/PG3 xBundi C/PG3 xBurden the Mind C Camera Phone C/PG2 Can't Take it with You C Cave of Apples R Chair of Hades R xCharigger, The Axe R Cobra Fangs R xCold Aura C xCommand the Legion R xCommunity Justice R xConceal R Condemn the Sins of the Father R xDivine Image U Dream World C/PS4 xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 xThe Eternal Mask C The Eternals of Sirius U Eyes of Blades R False Resonance C xFantasy World R xFillip C/PR2 Flesh Bond C xForearm Block C xGramle C Haqim's Law: Leadership C/PA xHard Case R Heart's Desire C/PR xHide the Mind R xInto Thin Air C/PS2 xJericho Founding C Karavalanisha Vrana R Khazar's Diary (Endless Night) C xKpist m/45 U Kumpania R xLesser Boon R Leverage C/PR2 Loss C/PA3 xLost in Translation C/PA Malajit Chandramouli R Mantle of the Moon U Mental Maze C/PS2 xMercury's Arrow C xMesu Bedshet C/PS Mirror's Visage R Mokolé Blood R Monster R Murmur of the False Will C/PG4 Narrow Minds R Nephren-Ka R Nest of Eagles C/PA2 xNightstick U Omael Kuman R xOpen Dossier C xPermanent Vacation R xPoison the Well of Life R xPowerbase: Savannah R Powerbase: Zürich R xPrecision R Preternatural Strength R xPromise of 1528 U Public Trust C/PS2 Quick Jab C Reckless Agitation C/PG3 Resist Earth's Grasp C/PA2 xResume the Coil R Retain the Quick Blood R Revelation of Ecstasy C/PS4 Sense the Savage Way C Set's Curse R xSheepdog R xShell Break C Shroudsight C Slam C/PG2 xSoul Feasting R Spell of Life C xStreet Cred C xStrike at the True Flesh C xSwiss Cut R xSympathetic Agony R xTalith U/PR xTarget Hand R Target Head R xTarget Leg R Target Vitals U Therbold Realty R xTrochomancy C xTrophy: Library R Trophy: No Questions R Trophy: Revered R Tye Cooper R xUnderbridge Stray U xUndying Tenacity C Unholy Penance C/PS3 xUrban Jungle R Vessel PA2/PG2/PR2/PS2 Warrant C/PG Will-o'-the-Wisp R xZapaderin C/PR2

On 2 Okt, 00:59, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <b14b232e-26d5-48a2-add2-cbaec18e6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Cards that don´t see play anywhere except in limited format I count as > > pretty much unplayable. How many times do you buy a booster and find a > > rare you don´t want? Pretty often I say. Why is it like that? Why not > > less wallpaper, more good cards? > > Give me a list. Take Twilight Rebellion. I can think of, maybe, 3 or 4 > wallpapery cards (and most of those are wallpapery 'cause I'm yet to > think about them hard enough to figure out something good to do with > them) in the set. The vast majority of them are totally solid cards for > many different strategies. Yeah, I agree, TR seems quite good actually. Especially compared to the Anarchs set.

On 2 Okt, 01:05, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <f9188455-dc2c-4959-be4b-271a144dd...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes, I think I could, if I bothered. > > You are the one claiming that 50% of each set is wallpaper. You are > being given the opportunity to illustrate this. Yet you decline. This > does not help your argument. See my reply to Wumpus.

On 2 Okt, 00:57, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <6c77ed4b-053a-449a-a98b-d8446b675...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Solid? When is it solid? When you try to explain in for a beginner? > > You can't judge every mechanic on "is it easy to explain to a beginner". > Some parts of a game need to be for advanced players. Otherwise, the > game stagnates. True. But I think the game needs more new players. The minds behind NoR seemed to disagree. > *No* part of VTES is easy to explain to a beginner. Yeah, The Imbued are > more complicated than most parts. So you know how you deal with that? > Don't introduce beginners to The Imbued till they already know how the > rest of the game works. Where I play, if someone turns up with a deck, they get to play. We can ´t tell someone not to play a deck. The same goes for any tournament, where I want to see both beginners and more experienced players. > > No. When every game timed because one player took 75 % of the game > > time just by moving around 50 cards on the table? Maybe. > > Lots of things can do that. I agree that someone playing the Imbued can > play slowly. Which is, indeed, irritating. If you introduce a mechanic that is all about manipulating your ashheap and library ALOT every round, and putting 5+ cards on every minion, then you are bound to have a game that takes alot of time and a lot of frustration from everyone trying to understand what is happening (why is he looking in his ashheap now?) and what minions having which cards (lets see, that guy has Laptop, Bow, conviction A, Champion, Jacket and that one has Tasha, sword, Hawg, conviction B, etc etc). NoR was a very, very stupid set.

On Oct 2, 4:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I see no point doing this with a set that was released so recently and > is about anarchs. But here is a list from LotN (which is a VERY good > set compared to, say, NoR) WOW, ok... > AK-47 R > xAgent of Power C This is in fact quite a good card in that it allows bloodline clans to push forward with some of their smaller minions and its useful in a lot of toolbox decks. > Ambulance R > xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 > Army of Apparitions C/PR > xAutonomic Mastery U > xBestow Vigor R > The Black Throne R > Blithe Acceptance C/PS2 > Blood Awakening C/PA3 > xBloodlust R Bloodlust is a great card for brujah and toreador combat decks as it can multiple rushes from one 4 cap > xBrute Force C/PG3 > xBundi C/PG3 > xBurden the Mind C > Camera Phone C/PG2 > Can't Take it with You C > Cave of Apples R > Chair of Hades R > xCharigger, The Axe R What? > Cobra Fangs R > xCold Aura C This card is amazing, get a flamethrower and set range to long for harbingers of skulls, or with the Giovanni throw a sewer lid for solid hit back. > xCommand the Legion R This card can be quite powerful for setting up for the final push > xCommunity Justice R > xConceal R Great for setites > Condemn the Sins of the Father R > xDivine Image U > Dream World C/PS4 > xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 Off the top of my head Malkavians and Baali LOVE this card > xThe Eternal Mask C +1 bleed D action at +1 stealth, do you know what Enticement does > The Eternals of Sirius U > Eyes of Blades R > False Resonance C > xFantasy World R This card again, is quiet good for its power level at inferior > xFillip C/PR2 > Flesh Bond C > xForearm Block C > xGramle C Are you kidding me > Haqim's Law: Leadership C/PA > xHard Case R > Heart's Desire C/PR > xHide the Mind R > xInto Thin Air C/PS2 > xJericho Founding C > Karavalanisha Vrana R > Khazar's Diary (Endless Night) C > xKpist m/45 U > Kumpania R > xLesser Boon R Good for wall decks that multi-act > Leverage C/PR2 > Loss C/PA3 > xLost in Translation C/PA WHAT!!! > Malajit Chandramouli R > Mantle of the Moon U > Mental Maze C/PS2 > xMercury's Arrow C > xMesu Bedshet C/PS This card is solid and I'm beginning to think your a bad player. With this if you build a good crypt around say Arnulf Jormungandrsson and run some info highways you could potentaly have a 8 cap and a 7 cap buy turn 3. I'm going to end it here do to the fact I can't respect your judgment. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 2, 4:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > xAgent of Power C Agent of Power is good in all sorts of weird decks. > xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 Good in decks with a lot of for. As it stops non strike damage. > xAutonomic Mastery U Very good for Imbued Killing. You hate the Imbued. I'd think you'd see the good of this card. > xBestow Vigor R Corner case. I'll give you this one. > xBloodlust R Good for weird rush decks. Something you build a deck around. > xBrute Force C/PG3 Corner case. That's 2. > xBundi C/PG3 Excellent in the appropriate deck (Jaroslav and IG). Can be incredibly brutal. > xBurden the Mind C Not fantastic. 3. > xCharigger, The Axe R Are you on crack? Charigger is fantastic. > xCold Aura C Inferior discipline set range to long? This card is great. > xCommand the Legion R > xCommunity Justice R Both corner case and hard to use. Ok. 5. > xConceal R Kill equipment or a Location? How is this bad? > xDivine Image U Good for Ser fighty decks. Which exist. And are pretty good. > xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 Totally reasonable. > xThe Eternal Mask C Again with the crack smoking. "I am a 2 cap with ser. I bleed for 2 at +1 stealth. With 1 card. Every turn, as I have a Path in play..." This card is incredibly good. > xFantasy World R Very good in decks built to use it. > xFillip C/PR2 Reasonable untap tech. A good trade off if you can make use of it vs, say, Forced. > xForearm Block C Not great. 6. > xGramle C Very good for tricky decks. And decks that need things like Spell of Life of Kazar's Diary. > xHard Case R Obedience for Fortitude? How is this bad? > xHide the Mind R Not great. 7. > xInto Thin Air C/PS2 Not the best stealth tech ever, no. But very playable in decks with large vampires and a lot of obf. Like stealth Ventrue. > xJericho Founding C Not horrible. > xKpist m/45 U Not as good as AK. But playable. > xLesser Boon R Good defensive master tech. > xLost in Translation C/PA Really. You are giving the disciplinless block card a "useless"? Honestly? > xMercury's Arrow C Good in decks built around it. Specialized. Not bad. > xMesu Bedshet C/PS Crack. Pipe. Put it down. > xNightstick U Fringe. Not horrible. > xOpen Dossier C Black Hand 2nd Tradition. You aren't really trying to make cards good, are you? > xPermanent Vacation R Again with the anti-Imbued tech that you clearly aren't seeing the good in. Confused. > xPoison the Well of Life R Not great. 8. > xPowerbase: Savannah R Good combat defense. > xPrecision R Hard to use. But not useless. > xPromise of 1528 U Very corner case. I'll give you 9. > xResume the Coil R Totally reasonable get out of Torpor free tech. > xSheepdog R Needs a deck built around it. But good there. > xShell Break C Not good. 10. > xSoul Feasting R Limited. But good when you are using it (i.e. burn a Kazar's wraith for 5 blood? How is this bad?) > xStreet Cred C Are you serious? > xStrike at the True Flesh C Not horrible. > xSwiss Cut R A good card for the Giovanni. Where is the problem? > xSympathetic Agony R Good in decks that want to use it. > xTalith U/PR Reasonable weapon tech. > xTarget Hand R Disciplineless weapon destruction. > xTarget Leg R Not good. Are we up to 11? > xTrochomancy C Really. A) Bloodless bleed for 3 backed by block fails tech. B) More good technology that also hoses the Imbued. Think, man, think! > xTrophy: Library R If you like trophies, this one is fine. > xUnderbridge Stray U ? Again, this card is great. A 1 blood blocker/untapper/press provider/ War Ghoul feed? > xUndying Tenacity C You are familiar with Undead Persistence, right? And people build decks around that on a regular basis, right? This card is better than that one. To the point that it more or less wallpapers it. > xUrban Jungle R 'Cause no one ever makes weenie ag poke amaranth decks? > xZapaderin C/PR2 Disciplineless stealth? Not going in all decks, no. But not bad. I am convinced by your list that what you consider "useless cards" are cards that are not immediately and obviously superpowered. Which makes your assessement that "50% of all sets are trash" a highly suspect view. Sure. If you only ever play Dementation S+B (just an example), then lots of cards seem bad. But if you like strectching how the game works and trying out lots of different stuff, and making weird angles competitive, then an awful lot of the cards you think are bad are actually very strong. -Peter

On Oct 2, 4:46 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > True. But I think the game needs more new players. The minds behind > NoR seemed to disagree. Based on what? That they made a set with an interesting set of new mechanics that aren't really appropriate for new players? Neither are Anarch related mechanics--does this mean that they don't want new players? > Where I play, if someone turns up with a deck, they get to play. We can > ´t tell someone not to play a deck. The same goes for any tournament, > where I want to see both beginners and more experienced players. That is insane. If you are teching someone new to play the game, you say "Hey, let's all play non complicated decks." 'Cause you are teaching someone to play. What, you hang out with people who are like "Huh. A new guy who is trying to learn the game. I'll be sure to bring out my Imbued/Sensory Deprivation/Lock Down deck! That'll show'em!" When you are teaching someone new, you use easy decks. 'Cause that is the non dick thing to do. If you find it hard to attract new players, this might be the reason. > If you introduce a mechanic that is all about manipulating your > ashheap and library ALOT every round, and putting 5+ cards on every > minion, then you are bound to have a game that takes alot of time and > a lot of frustration from everyone trying to understand what is > happening (why is he looking in his ashheap now?) and what minions > having which cards (lets see, that guy has Laptop, Bow, conviction A, > Champion, Jacket and that one has Tasha, sword, Hawg, conviction B, > etc etc). NoR was a very, very stupid set. It is clear that you think so. Not everyone agrees with you. I have played tournament games against Imbued players who were completely reasonable, timely, and easy to understand. I have played tournament games against weenie PRE decks that are incredibly slow and confusing. Yes. The Imbued can present a pain in the ass to players. But not if people are competent. -Peter

On Oct 1, 4:03 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > > Could you take Lords of the Night and explain which half of the library > > cards you think are pretty much unplayable? Not just vague sweeps of > > the hand, could you list 40% of the library cards that are pretty much > > unplauable? To make a stat on "every set", you should probably repeat > > this for Sword of Caine and Twilight Rebellion. > > Here's an easy starting point. TR only has 60 cards, so it shouldn't > take long to check off the 50% that are 'unplayable', especially with > the handy list below: > Since he doesn't seem willing to back up his argument at all, let me see what cards I find to be worthless... I was going to do LotN, but since you were so kind as to post the contents of TR... > X Elixir of Distillation C > Haven Hunting C > Smear Campaign R > World's a Canvas, The R Those are the cards I consider to be well below par. Of course, lots of people actually like Haven Hunting (I'm not sure if it's from experience or just from considering putting it in a deck), but I'm not convinced - maybe it's good? Elixir is obviously wallpaper. The others are, IMHO, bad cards, but not wallpaper. So... through one set, it certainly doesn't look 50% unplayable. Looks like 1 unplayable and maybe 3 to 5 not very good cards. Off the top of my head, the only LotN card I can think of that's virtually worthless is Divine Image. Cool effect, totally not worth 2 blood when Skin of the Adder only costs 1. Interestingly enough, though, it's another in the line of Command of the Beast and Leverage that don't disallow more bleed mods. There are probably a few others cards in LotN that aren't very good, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's no way someone's gonna find 50% of it to be wallpaper.

Oops, when I posted below, half of the discussion wasn't showing up for me... Must have needed to refresh. Anyway, I still stand by the below, even though some of it may be a repeat or refuted by other discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 2, 8:05 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 4:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 > > Good in decks with a lot of for. As it stops non strike damage. I've gotten a LOT of mileage out of this card against things like agg- damage dealers or Crows/Bats. And against a couple of local players that looooove WWSticks. > > xBrute Force C/PG3 > > Corner case. That's 2. I disagree with this; I've had a lot of fun using this with Baseball Bats and a wave of [pot] vampires slugging folks for 4 at no blood cost and one card played. (In fact, I had even more fun when the Bats were being equipped with an occasional Forger's Hammer.) > > xBurden the Mind C > > Not fantastic. 3. Not fantastic, but it's a gigantic hose to one-key-blocker wall decks. Which I at least see pretty much every session locally, so it gets some play here for metagame reasons. Really does nasty things to No Secrets decks when every tapped block attempt costs a pool. > > xCold Aura C > > Inferior discipline set range to long? This card is great. Especially when you can follow it up with Lids with a huge range of vampires.. > > xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 > > Totally reasonable. A bit corner-case, but there's some vampires that really like this card due to the untap clause, like Bartholomew or infernal vampires, or anarch decks wanting to be untapped for Power of All. I also greatly appreciate the power of this against decks that have small amounts of stealth - 'you might get past me with this action, but if so I can try to block a second action instead from the same card.' > > xThe Eternal Mask C > > Again with the crack smoking. "I am a 2 cap with ser. I bleed for 2 at > +1 stealth. With 1 card. Every turn, as I have a Path in play..." This > card is incredibly good. This card has already been the focal point of tourney-winners, too. > > xHard Case R > > Obedience for Fortitude? How is this bad? "I Block, and shatter your Ivory Bow/.44/Sport Bike" is also awesome. > > xLost in Translation C/PA > > Really. You are giving the disciplinless block card a "useless"? > Honestly? > > > xMercury's Arrow C > > Good in decks built around it. Specialized. Not bad. Fun to mix into Flung Junk decks as well. > > xTarget Leg R > > Not good. Are we up to 11? Agreed, it's not that good. It's pretty funny to stick a couple into a Trap deck, though. > -Peter -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, ok, thanks. I love you too.

On Oct 2, 4:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > xAgent of Power C > xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 > xCold Aura C > xConceal R > xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 > xThe Eternal Mask C > xFillip C/PR2 > xInto Thin Air C/PS2 > xKpist m/45 U > xLost in Translation C/PA > xMercury's Arrow C > xMesu Bedshet C/PS > xOpen Dossier C > xPowerbase: Savannah R > xSheepdog R > xStreet Cred C > xTrochomancy C > xTrophy: Library R > xUnderbridge Stray U > xUrban Jungle R > xZapaderin C/PR2 All debates about individual card power aside, I have seen all of the above cards played to good effect in actual games. So it's demonstrably and objectively incorrect to include them on a list of cards that are unplayable. John Eno

On Oct 2, 4:25 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > They should care John, because a good relationship with your retail > chain is important for continued success of your product line. True enough, I guess. But... > We are selling NoR at much less than any other V:TES product but still > no one ordered a single box in months. Has this affected how much business you do with White Wolf in terms of buying other sets? John Eno

We seem to play in different enviroments - you seem to build decks to not win games, while I value all cards versus other cards that I rather have in my deck. I might not be as great a player as you or "Pullen", so this is my way to try to win. You seem to just thrown together some cards that are good some of the time, while I like cards that are good most of the time. Also, I will not continue to take this kind of insult. No, I don´t smoke crack, and if you can´t argue like a grown up, there is no use for me to try either.

[ quoted text not captured ] Fine, we are beginning to understand eachother. And I´m on crack and insane.

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:b9841656-b804-48d9...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... On Oct 1, 2:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > >Why are we to be "surprised" with new sets? > > So that you can savor the sensation of the finished product. This is > part of enjoying the game. It would be like a delicious cake. It is > delicious when it is finished, but if you ate raw flour, raw eggs, > sugar and baking soda, then you would say, "the sugar was okay, but > the raw flour, raw eggs and baking soda sucked ass. Yuck! I would > never eat that cake." Apply this concept to chocolate chip cookies and YOU ARE SO WRONG!!! The one ingredient in chocolate chip cookies is chocolate chip cookie dough, and that works even better for me! The only reason to cook the stuff is to give it form so you can take lots of them along with you in your car and not have to bring a bowl! Bad Norm! Bad analogy! BAD!!! Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:9e630597-56bc-4d80...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Oct 1, 10:09 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I really don�t see what this has to do with VtES. Cake tastes good. > > Nights of Reckoning tasted like shit. > > We realize that you don't like the Imbued. The mechanics for the set > were solid. The vast majoirity of the set is completely playable. You > seem to be confusing "I don't like" with "badly designed". (Comment - without endorsing the notion of public playtesting, that I'd be pretty leery of...) Are you kidding, Peter?!? The mechanics of NoR were exactly what was bad: 8 million permanents on the table causes problems. I think there's probably a big debate-within-a-debate about what kind of definition constitutes a "playable" card, but the overall set and many of the cards in it were problematic in a certain way. It's probably a dangerous diversion in this thread to start debating whether NoR was a well-conceived set because I think you may find there's a lot of haters in the woodwork. Fred

On Oct 2, 11:56 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > We seem to play in different enviroments - you seem to build decks to > not win games, while I value all cards versus other cards that I > rather have in my deck. Sigh. At no point have I said "you don't try to win games" (in fact, I also haven't said "I don't try to win games"). But the list of cards you put up as bad cards makes no sense. Really? You think Lost in Translation is bad? And Eternal Mask? Both of those cards are fantastic. In highly compeitive decks. And Street Cred. And Mesu Bedshet. It is like you aren't even *trying* to see how cards can be good. > Also, I will not continue to take this kind of insult. Ya know, this is the second time this has come up. I'm pretty sure you are from Europe. And the last time this came up, it was someone from Europe (Finland possibly based on your name? Maybe in Finland everyone takes crack very, very seriously?). So maybe it is something lost in translation. In the US, "Are you on crack?" is an incredibly common, wise-assy comment to indicate that someone thinks what you are saying makes no sense. As if you were smoking crack. And thus addled and possibly insane. It is in no way meant to indicate that the person asking the question actually thinks you are actually smoking actual crack. Kind of like when someone says "are you insane?". They probably don't actually think you actually have a mental illness. They just think what you are saying is of questionable merit. Saying "are you on crack?" is the exact same thing. Really. -Peter

On Oct 2, 11:59 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Fine, we are beginning to understand eachother. And I´m on crack and > insane Sigh. You are familiar with the concept of "slang" right? You are asserting that Nights of Reckoning is bad for new players, 'cause if someone is trying to learn the game, people will refuse to not use their most complicated decks when teaching them. Which makes no sense at all. I don't know how you introduce new players to the game, but around here, we ease them in, playing simple decks, making sure they know what is going on, and as time goes on, we ratchet up the complication levels. And by the time they have digested most of the game and can play without much coaching, things like Anarchs and the Imbued aren't much of a big deal. What you were suggesting (that people show up to play, say "I'm not going to change my deck choice if we are trying to teach someone new the game") is really questionable. And thus, I called it "insane". Not 'cause I think anyone involved in this discussion is actually mentally ill. But 'cause calling something "insane" is slang for "that makes no sense". -Peter

On Oct 2, 12:13 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Are you kidding, Peter?!? The mechanics of NoR were exactly what was > bad: 8 million permanents on the table causes problems. It is totally workable. I have played Imbued decks, and been in games with Imbued decks where the crap on the table isn't really an issue. Sure, it can be a huge drag. But usually, when people know what they are doing, it works out ok. I realize that there might have been a better way to do what the Imbued need to do. But the system that was made works well enough. > It's probably > a dangerous diversion in this thread to start debating whether NoR was a > well-conceived set because I think you may find there's a lot of haters > in the woodwork. Oh, I'm sure there are plenty. Before a couple cards got banned, I thought they were horrible. But as a mechanic, they work ok. Not perfect, but viable. And interesting. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:ac9c2275-87e6-4309...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Oct 2, 12:13 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Are you kidding, Peter?!? The mechanics of NoR were exactly what was > > bad: 8 million permanents on the table causes problems. > > It is totally workable. I have played Imbued decks, and been in games > with Imbued decks where the crap on the table isn't really an issue. > Sure, it can be a huge drag. But usually, when people know what they > are doing, it works out ok. Well, it's a huge drag - and that's what's wrong with it. And the fact is, you can't guarantee that the player sitting behind all those permanents actually DOES know what they're doing. Not everyone is Robyn Tatu's cat, after all. More to the point, it's not just the person playing the cards. Once someone plays a permanent on the table, everyone in the game needs to look at them and evaluate what they can do. In fact, it's the people who _don't_ know what else is in the hunter deck who wind up taking the time looking over everything and considering how it affects their personal position. The problem with your assertion that Imbued decks work fine is that it flies in face of all my experience with them. They ALWAYS slow down games. Always! Partly because they tend to be so defensive in nature but also, in large part, because a million cards are on the table and people always have to look at all of them. > > It's probably > > a dangerous diversion in this thread to start debating whether NoR was a > > well-conceived set because I think you may find there's a lot of haters > > in the woodwork. > > Oh, I'm sure there are plenty. Before a couple cards got banned, I > thought they were horrible. But as a mechanic, they work ok. Not > perfect, but viable. And interesting. I'm just saying, it's a bad idea to hinge the defense of private playtesting on the outcome of NoR. That would give the argument against a lot more impetus than it really deserves. The fact is that, once out of the initial design stages, I find it highly dubious that a different playtest process would have prevented NoR from coming out in more or less the format in which it was printed. I mean, what was White Wolf going to do? Shitcan the whole idea of things like Power cards and Conviction cards based on public - as opposed to private - playtest comments? They'd have to go back to the drawing board and recreate the whole thing from scratch. I doubt there any real chance of that happening in the playtest stage. Just MHO. Fred

On Oct 2, 1:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Well, it's a huge drag - and that's what's wrong with it. Oh, come on, Fred. It just isn't that big of a deal. Again, my experience with the Imbued in tournament play is that they don't really slow things down, assuming the people playing them know what they are doing. > The problem with your assertion that Imbued decks work fine is that it flies > in face of all my experience with them. They ALWAYS slow down > games. Always! Not significantly more so than other reactive decks. -Peter

I think your list would have received better comment if you offered reasonings behind some of your choices. Like most of the others, a lot of your choices of bad/unplayable cards I just simply can't see. On Oct 2, 1:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I see no point doing this with a set that was released so recently and > is about anarchs. But here is a list from LotN (which is a VERY good > set compared to, say, NoR) > > xAutonomic Mastery U Burn non-wraith allies and retainers outright? A combat ends to get out of Immortal Grapple. And these effects are unplayable? > xBloodlust R A rush for X minions, giving them a press no matter if they're blocked or not. What am I missing that makes this card unplayable? > xBrute Force C/PG3 > xBundi C/PG3 It's seeming like Immortal Grapple isn't used much in your metagame, for which you should be thankful. And the fact you could Brute Force your Bundi strike while Grappling? Gold in my books. I've even used it in my fun Ghouled Muddled Vampire Hunter deck to great effect .. not many like having a rusher than can strike for 7 aggravated first strike. > xThe Eternal Mask C Have to agree with others, +1 bleed at +1 stealth for minor Serpentis is very strong. > xMesu Bedshet C/PS An Effective Management and disciplineless Scouting Mission in one? Especially good in a star Setite deck that is supported by a lot of smaller Setites. > xNightstick U It's no Ivory Bow, but it's certainly not a Chainsaw either. Perfectly playable. > xSheepdog R Fantastic blood gain for Baali. > xSoul Feasting R 4/5 blood gain can hardly be called unplayable, even if you need burn a wraith in play (something that the Giovanni are hardly poor at) > xSwiss Cut R Free pool/blood gain, that can't be stolen or destroyed? Goes in nicely in a couple of Alan Sovereign/Giovanni decks I have been working on. > xTalith U/PR Free +1 damage weapon for Ravnos, with an option to destroy equipment. How is this bad? > xTrochomancy C Totally, totally lost on this one. +bleed that saps your prey's resources. Hugely effective against decks the recurse in any way or rely on stuff being in the ash heap (Imbued decks, Anthelios, Shambling Hordes, etc.) > xTrophy: Library R +2 hand size unplayable? All told, you're still under 50% of the set, and even then, a _lot_ of your choices are highly questionable. Your selections seem more based on "only a certain clan can play this card, so it is therefore useless". For my part, meh cards (those that I don't see as being powerful, but still playable) include: Agent of Power - Useful in concept decks, but I'd rather use proper skill cards in their place. Armor of Vitality - Doesn't overpower any other prevent cards, though destroying melee weapons is nice bonus Burden the Mind - Fairly weak and costly, but could be useful in certain situations. Command the Legion - I'm not one for just tapping minions, wakes are usually pretty plentiful. Can get pretty costly as well. Divine Image - I want to like this card, but 2 blood just seems a little costly for it's effects. Though I can see it being fairly strong in the right kind of deck. Eyes of Blades - Useful in certain situations, I suppose. I haven't thought of a time I'd want to play this though. Damage retainers aren't common in my metagame. Forearm Block - Disciplineless prevent. Not a bad card, but nothing to zomg! about either. Heart's Desire - The bleed and block fails is nice, but requires a bit of setup to use, or specific crypts, as Aus and Chi are not a common pairing, especially at superior. Kpist m/45 - Costs 1 pool too much in my book. Pretty strong in a Mass Reality deck, I suppose. Mercury's Arrow - I should like this card, but it just doesn't do anything for me. I think it's the blood cost. Poison the Well of Life - Good for a metagame that uses Hunting Grounds a lot. Conceal, Arson or the like seem better choices if you're concerned about locations otherwise. Promise of 1528 - Perhaps when Keepers comes out this will be a bit more useful. Find it too restrictive in use. Sympathetic Agony - Situationally useful. Certainly good against pressing combat decks or celerity decks, and you can at least cycle it freely if not. Warrant - No stealth on the vote is the killer for me. Cards that I find poor to not worth playing: Community Justice - Far too high an opportunity cost. I could see maybe one thrown in for flavour, but could easily be replaced with more useful cards. Leverage - I want to like this card, but it just seems to need a bit more work than the benefit. Most bleed decks would have better options, but the fact you can add more bleed to it is a bonus. Target Leg - Compared to the other Aim cards, this one is woefully underpowered. Negating maneuvers is most likely to be an unused effect, presses a little more useful. Can be useful, I just can't see putting it in a deck over other options. So 3 cards out of what, 110? Perhaps I'm too lenient, but I found Lords of the Night to be an extremely strong set with hardly anything that could be considered wall paper or outright unplayable. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Oct 2, 12:10 am, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > X Anarch Manifesto, An C: crap from what I can tell > > I dunno about this one. I looked at this and immediately built a deck > around it. Seems very powerful in a weenie pre (only) stealth bleeder > based on Undue Influence. Haven't tried it out yet, but I can't see > how bleeds of 3 (that double as bloat) at 3 stealth are anything but > good. (Power of One and Club Illusion round out the bleed and > stealth.) > In the right deck (the one you mention, coincidentally), it's a Marijava Ghoul that doesn't cost 2 blood. And it works in other ways for other decks as well. It may not be earth-shattering, but it's not wallpaper, that's for sure. > > > X Exclusion Principle C: Not useless just kinda cornercase > > Yeah, seems like Con Boon is generally just going to be better. > Not for an Anarch deck, and that's the point of it. Anarch decks based around 1 clan seem to be kind of the exception, and I think those decks are missing out on a lot of the synergy of playing several disciplines that can all use the same card at a different level. Exclusion principle is Con Boon for Anarchs. Sure, it might help someone else cross table, but it's surprising how few good pool-gain votes there are other than Con Boon, so if you're playing a non-clan deck that's based around independents or anarchs, you have a good bloat card. > > > X Poacher's Hunting Ground R: ASS > > Really? Seems like it could be good if your meta has a lot of HG > usage. > Just 1 other HG on the table and you have a free non-unique hunting ground. That doesn't seem weak at all. If there aren't any other HG's on the table, then yes, you spent an MPA for something that doesn't help you, but that balances out the situations where you got your non-clan-based hunting ground for free. And sometimes it's 2 or 3 hunting grounds for free and only 1 MPA. Not often, granted, but can definitely be a great card with the right metagame, and probably at least decent in most environments. > > X Shoulder Drop C: Meh I don't particularly like Shoulder Drop, but I've seen it used to decent effect.

On Oct 2, 12:41 pm, I <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ya know, this is the second time this has come up. I'm pretty sure you > are from Europe. And the last time this came up, it was someone from > Europe (Finland possibly based on your name? Maybe in Finland everyone > takes crack very, very seriously?). Apparently I was on the crack. Not Finish. Sweedish. Is crack addiction not viewed as the basis of inappropriate comedy in Sweeden? -Peter

omg make this thread die - Ben Peal

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:6a178a42-ea7b-41d5...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Oct 2, 1:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Well, it's a huge drag - and that's what's wrong with it. > > Oh, come on, Fred. It just isn't that big of a deal. People cringing and getting annoyed every time they see an Imbued deck start influencing up hunters says otherwise. > Again, my > experience with the Imbued in tournament play is that they don't > really slow things down, assuming the people playing them know what > they are doing. Again, it's not the people playing the decks. It's everybody else in the game. And there can be never be a gurantee that other people playing against a hunter decks are very familiar with them. > > The problem with your assertion that Imbued decks work fine is that it flies > > in face of all my experience with them. They ALWAYS slow down > > games. Always! > > Not significantly more so than other reactive decks. Other reactive decks don't put that many permanents on the table at a time. And worse, some of the permanents (the Conviction cards) jump on the table and off the table constantly. Others (Gehenna events) can be insanely complex yet still very important. There is just no comparison. If I put a card down on the table, that's information. And - since everyone is better off having as much information as possible - that means everyone else except people highly familiar with the cards needs to look at them a lot. And that's a game-flow problem. Fred

On Oct 2, 11:34 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > omg make this thread die > > - Ben Peal The sad thing is that discussion like how good individual cards are, which this thread has moved into, is precisely the thing that I most enjoy arguing about with people. I just don't see it being constructive on the newsgroup, however, to argue about a wide range (more than, like, 2 at a time) of cards. Also, it's theoretically, if not practically, useful to standardize what people mean by things like "unplayable". Personally, I'm way more concerned with what is tournament viable for a given CCG, though that doesn't mean as much in multiplayer CCGs as it does in two-player ones. Admittedly, what cards are coasters and why is interesting in that one can hope that something is learned about what not to make in the future. But, yeah, this particular thread seems pretty painful.

On Oct 2, 1:05 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > > For my part, meh cards (those that I don't see as being powerful, but > still playable) include: > > Eyes of Blades - Useful in certain situations, I suppose. I haven't > thought of a time I'd want to play this though. Damage retainers > aren't common in my metagame. Seriously? It's Skin of Steel for AUS/CEL that can also prevent damage from retainers... I think maybe you are focusing on the retainer part too much. > Heart's Desire - The bleed and block fails is nice, but requires a bit > of setup to use, or specific crypts, as Aus and Chi are not a common > pairing, especially at superior. I still think this is a good card. Needing vampires that have the specific disciplines just makes it harder to use, that doesn't mean it's not worth it... > Kpist m/45 - Costs 1 pool too much in my book. Pretty strong in a Mass > Reality deck, I suppose. Well, I suspect it wasn't made 2 pool because it would be better than . 44 Magnum, which is already probably slightly undercosted. .44 would still be better if you're additional striking, but if you don't have celerity 1 and 1 is better than 2 at once. Even still, unless you're basing your deck around Kpist, with like Mass Reality or lots of Ammo (with Magazine, presumably), it's really not worth 3 pool. AK is better because it costs the same as an Assault Rifle. In that case, I figure it wasn't as important to make it cost more because Assault Rifle is borderline overcosted anyway. > Mercury's Arrow - I should like this card, but it just doesn't do > anything for me. I think it's the blood cost. Yeah, without the blood cost, it woulda been okay. At 1 blood, and no maneuver on the superior, I just don't like it. > Warrant - No stealth on the vote is the killer for me. > No what now? Are you sure... it's a political action card, which, just like equipment, are at +1 stealth. As far as I can tell, it doesn't otherwise on the card... > Leverage - I want to like this card, but it just seems to need a bit > more work than the benefit. Most bleed decks would have better > options, but the fact you can add more bleed to it is a bonus. Very good card. For one, as you mention, it doesn't prevent other bleed mods, so I've seen it along with Empowering the Puppet King for allowing allies to bleed for 3. But also for weenie decks or combat decks without a bleed discipline, it means you can bleed twice for 3 bleed. It can be added on to a Computer Hacking as well, but I tend to like Leverage by itself better than Hack just because it's a modifier and doesn't have to be played when the action is declared. It's not so much a card for bleed decks, generally, as it is for combat decks that eventually need to bleed in order to oust their prey. I'm thinking about building a throwback weenie deck, like the ones I recall seeing sweeping tournament finals about 5 years ago. But instead of just Computer Hacks and Lucky Blows, throw in some Leverage as well. Seems like it would be strong.

Howdy Peter, > > xBestow Vigor R > > Corner case. I'll give you this one. Seems like you could make something interesting with dom or pre weenies who turn into for weenies (Trap/Undead Persistence) when blocked. The rarity makes it hard to find out if this would work at all. > > xBrute Force C/PG3 > > Corner case. That's 2. Yeah. Melee weapon enhancer. I got nothing. > > xBurden the Mind C > > Not fantastic. 3. Weren't people talking about how broken this was during the preview? > > xCommand the Legion R > > xCommunity Justice R > > Both corner case and hard to use. Ok. 5. I'm sure you can do nasty things with Command, but really, who wants to? It's just not challenging to make nasty dom decks. > > xConceal R > > Kill equipment or a Location? How is this bad? I will take any and all copies people want to trade me. This goes in basically every deck I have with any significant OBF and I'd like to stop swapping the two copies I have around. > > xForearm Block C > > Not great. 6. Too conditional. Glancing Blow gets more use and even it isn't very good. > > xHide the Mind R > > Not great. 7. I dunno - it can cancel both Auspex bounce cards at superior. If you are a stealth bleeder, being able to cancel half the bounce cards in the game, or, alternatively, foil Enhanced Senses, seem pretty OK to me. > > xPoison the Well of Life R > > Not great. 8. It went straight in to my Aziz FSR/Vampiric Disease/Foul Blood deck. > > xPromise of 1528 U > > Very corner case. I'll give you 9. Heh. Great PTO defense. But too late. > > xShell Break C > > Not good. 10. Jake + Shell Break seems like a no-brainer for most Giovanni decks. > > xTarget Leg R > > Not good. Are we up to 11? Agreed on the not good here, but I'm at more like, what, 7? Out of how many cards in the set? Thanks for winnowing down the original list of 'unplayable' LotN cards, Peter. I don't have that kind of time to spend on someone who apparently has no imagination or initiative at all. (Conceal!?! Unplayable?) Alex

On Oct 2, 2:38 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Other reactive decks don't put that many permanents on the table at a > time. You should play in Boston more. :) John Eno

On Oct 2, 11:59 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Oct 2, 1:05 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > > For my part, meh cards (those that I don't see as being powerful, but > > still playable) include: > > > Eyes of Blades - Useful in certain situations, I suppose. I haven't > > thought of a time I'd want to play this though. Damage retainers > > aren't common in my metagame. > > Seriously? It's Skin of Steel for AUS/CEL that can also prevent > damage from retainers... I think maybe you are focusing on the > retainer part too much. At the cost of your own strikes, yes. I was focusing on the retainer part because that really the only boon to the card. Remember these are just cards I don't find too hot in my books, not that they aren't useful. :) > > Heart's Desire - The bleed and block fails is nice, but requires a bit > > of setup to use, or specific crypts, as Aus and Chi are not a common > > pairing, especially at superior. > > I still think this is a good card. Needing vampires that have the > specific disciplines just makes it harder to use, that doesn't mean > it's not worth it... Oh certainly, in the right deck, it's killer. Just not a lot of options to get that right deck. > > Kpist m/45 - Costs 1 pool too much in my book. Pretty strong in a Mass > > Reality deck, I suppose. > > Well, I suspect it wasn't made 2 pool because it would be better than . > 44 Magnum, which is already probably slightly undercosted. .44 would > still be better if you're additional striking, but if you don't have > celerity 1 and 1 is better than 2 at once. Even still, unless you're > basing your deck around Kpist, with like Mass Reality or lots of Ammo > (with Magazine, presumably), it's really not worth 3 pool. AK is > better because it costs the same as an Assault Rifle. In that case, I > figure it wasn't as important to make it cost more because Assault > Rifle is borderline overcosted anyway. Hmm, perhaps. Ammo cards are a consideration too, though ammo cards are rare indeed in my metagame, and even I've given up on trying to build a deck that makes good use of them other than a bit of splash damage. I just find that if I'm using guns as a focus, I'm likely to be going Celerity anyway. If it's just a deterrent, then .44s usually win out. But I could certainly see a Ravnos Kpist based deck doing well. > > Mercury's Arrow - I should like this card, but it just doesn't do > > anything for me. I think it's the blood cost. > > Yeah, without the blood cost, it woulda been okay. At 1 blood, and no > maneuver on the superior, I just don't like it. I think that's it, really. Comparable to Aid from Bats and Thrown Gate, but costs. I mean, can still be used to good effect in celerity decks, certainly, and Miller Delmardigan loves it, surely. > > Warrant - No stealth on the vote is the killer for me. > > No what now? Are you sure... it's a political action card, which, > just like equipment, are at +1 stealth. As far as I can tell, it > doesn't otherwise on the card... I stand correctly. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that this one was specifically no stealth, so got turned off it. So we can take this one of the 'meh' list. :) > > Leverage - I want to like this card, but it just seems to need a bit > > more work than the benefit. Most bleed decks would have better > > options, but the fact you can add more bleed to it is a bonus. > > Very good card. For one, as you mention, it doesn't prevent other > bleed mods, so I've seen it along with Empowering the Puppet King for > allowing allies to bleed for 3. But also for weenie decks or combat > decks without a bleed discipline, it means you can bleed twice for 3 > bleed. It can be added on to a Computer Hacking as well, but I tend > to like Leverage by itself better than Hack just because it's a > modifier and doesn't have to be played when the action is declared. > It's not so much a card for bleed decks, generally, as it is for > combat decks that eventually need to bleed in order to oust their > prey. > > I'm thinking about building a throwback weenie deck, like the ones I > recall seeing sweeping tournament finals about 5 years ago. But > instead of just Computer Hacks and Lucky Blows, throw in some Leverage > as well. Seems like it would be strong. I suppose. Just seems to be a bit of work for an extra +1 bleed over two actions. You have to get a bleed through in the first place to get the edge, and then get another successful bleed off. With all the other bleed modifiers and effects out there, it just doesn't strike me as all that hot. I guess that could also be since I don't play weenie decks (I have trouble enough making mid-cap decks), so if I'm wanting more bleed, I usually have access to some larger bleed modifiers. Chris, Thrall of Arika

In message <169c6589-552d-4b89...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups .com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >Yes, I realise this, but I think you mainly try to defend everything >WW has done as very good and "people make errors" and so on. I certainly don't defend everything White Wolf has done. You asked for reasons why playtesting isn't done openly. These are some of the reasons why I wouldn't do it openly. I, like others, have suggested things that could be done better - both in this thread and in the past. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:26939354-b09e-46bb...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You're telling me. I'd love to be able to! And Atlanta. And Sweden. And a bunch of other places. Fred

On 2 Okt, 18:41, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 11:56 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > We seem to play in different enviroments - you seem to build decks to > > not win games, while I value all cards versus other cards that I > > rather have in my deck. > > Sigh. At no point have I said "you don't try to win games" (in fact, I > also haven't said "I don't try to win games"). But the list of cards > you put up as bad cards makes no sense. Really? You think Lost in > Translation is bad? And Eternal Mask? Both of those cards are > fantastic. In highly compeitive decks. And Street Cred. And Mesu > Bedshet. It is like you aren't even *trying* to see how cards can be > good. Yes, I think Lost in translation is a bad card. I don´t see myself using it in any deck. Why should I? And Eternal Mask - in what competitive deck should I use it? > > Also, I will not continue to take this kind of insult. > > Ya know, this is the second time this has come up. I'm pretty sure you > are from Europe. And the last time this came up, it was someone from > Europe (Finland possibly based on your name? Maybe in Finland everyone > takes crack very, very seriously?). So maybe it is something lost in > translation. In the US, "Are you on crack?" is an incredibly common, > wise-assy comment to indicate that someone thinks what you are saying > makes no sense. As if you were smoking crack. And thus addled and > possibly insane. It is in no way meant to indicate that the person > asking the question actually thinks you are actually smoking actual > crack. Kind of like when someone says "are you insane?". They probably > don't actually think you actually have a mental illness. They just > think what you are saying is of questionable merit. Saying "are you on > crack?" is the exact same thing. Really. > > -Peter So, you are aware that people on this newsgroup don´t "get" your slang, but still you continue to use it?

On 2 Okt, 18:48, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 11:59 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Fine, we are beginning to understand eachother. And I´m on crack and > > insane > > Sigh. You are familiar with the concept of "slang" right? Yes, but I don´t use it when I know people would not understand and/or take it wrong. To me it mainly seems like you like to provoke me when you run out of arguments. > You are asserting that Nights of Reckoning is bad for new players, > 'cause if someone is trying to learn the game, people will refuse to > not use their most complicated decks when teaching them. Which makes > no sense at all. I don't know how you introduce new players to the > game, but around here, we ease them in, playing simple decks, making > sure they know what is going on, and as time goes on, we ratchet up > the complication levels. And by the time they have digested most of > the game and can play without much coaching, things like Anarchs and > the Imbued aren't much of a big deal. Good for you. Here we mainly don´t have the opportunity to pick and choose. People turn up, people play. Just like a tournament. > What you were suggesting (that people show up to play, say "I'm not > going to change my deck choice if we are trying to teach someone new > the game") is really questionable. And thus, I called it "insane". Not > 'cause I think anyone involved in this discussion is actually mentally > ill. But 'cause calling something "insane" is slang for "that makes no > sense". See above. And when you say that my arguments "make no sense", do you mean that you don´t understand what I am saying? Because I understand yours, I just don´t agree.

In article <9ac7b672-5487-4219...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Yes, but I don�t use it when I know people would not understand and/or > take it wrong. To me it mainly seems like you like to provoke me when > you run out of arguments. Why should I assume that you'll take really innocuous slang incorrectly? You spend a lot of time arguing, in English, correctly, on the internet. It makes sense to assume that when you see a colorful turn of phrase, your reaction would be "That is a colorful turn of phrase...", not "I'm outraged that I am being accused of serious drug abuse!". And where have I possibly run out of arguments? > Good for you. Here we mainly don�t have the opportunity to pick and > choose. People turn up, people play. Just like a tournament. And it honestly never occured to you that it might make sense to adjust your play style when teaching someone new? 5 people sit down at a game, one of them is brand new and just learning the game, and no one says "This guy is new and just learning the game. Everyone play a relatively simple deck for his sake..." Really? Or are you just trying to support your argument with an unrealistic description of a harsh and draconian play environment? > See above. And when you say that my arguments "make no sense", do you > mean that you don�t understand what I am saying? Because I understand > yours, I just don�t agree. "Argument makes no sense" generally means "that argument is a bad one". You make perfect sense, generally speaking, in a "I can understand the words you are saying" sense. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <d517ad40-a747-41dd...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Yes, I think Lost in translation is a bad card. I don�t see myself > using it in any deck. Why should I? And Eternal Mask - in what > competitive deck should I use it? Well, lots of folks disagree on Lost in Translation. That you can no longer look at your prey, not see dom or AUS, and automatically assume no bounce is *huge*, even if someone isn't using it. It is expensive. And not as good as Deflection or Telepathic Misdirection. But its very existence is *incredibly* significant. And it sees play on a regular basis. You might not like it. But to claim that it is "unplayable" is just absurd. And you really can't see how Eternal Mask is good? Honestly? +1 bleed and +1 stealth at ser? Obf/Ser S+B? With Settite weenies? Waters of Duat? Honestly not seeing something that works there? > So, you are aware that people on this newsgroup don�t "get" your > slang, but still you continue to use it? Sure. Consider it me bringing the world together. It isn't like I'm accusing you of "twirling the mongoose" or anything. "That is insane" and "Are you on crack?" seem like they should be easy enough to understand as colorful phraseology cross culturally. [ quoted text not captured ]

wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > Pullen <mattp3...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> X Anarch Manifesto, An C: crap from what I can tell > > I dunno about this one. I looked at this and immediately built a deck > around it. Seems very powerful in a weenie pre (only) stealth bleeder > based on Undue Influence. Haven't tried it out yet, but I can't see > how bleeds of 3 (that double as bloat) at 3 stealth are anything but > good. (Power of One and Club Illusion round out the bleed and > stealth.) Because it's a 1 stealth equip action that gets blocked and causes your UI dude to go to torpor? That's why it's bad. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

Peter, Promise me that when this thread reaches 100 posts you'll stop posting. - Ben Peal

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: >> Where I play, if someone turns up with a deck, they get to play. We >> can �t tell someone not to play a deck. The same goes for any >> tournament, where I want to see both beginners and more experienced >> players. > > That is insane. Be careful, Peter. He may take you seriously! LOLL ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Fine, we are beginning to understand eachother. > And I�m on crack and insane. Told you, Peter! LOLL ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Melted butter: Check Salt: Check Pot of boiling oil: Check Maize snack of my choice: Check. Peter and As, please continue, this is sooooooooooooo much fun. Pop pop poppedity pop....

[ quoted text not captured ] as long as it's not *actually* massively offensive, and is just a gap in understanding of meaning. I mean, there was that other poster a while back who found a certain 'n' word to be not offensive where he was, yet when using it here people suggested he shouldn't because for a large number of readers it was very offensive when used in the manner he was using it. I imagine it would be only reasonable to not use your particular slang expression here, if there are others who are going to be genuinely offended by it. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

In article <1630c133-72f9-40ed...@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Peter, > > Promise me that when this thread reaches 100 posts you'll stop > posting. Where are we now? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On 2 Okt, 23:04, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <9ac7b672-5487-4219-985e-dd17043f3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes, but I don´t use it when I know people would not understand and/or > > take it wrong. To me it mainly seems like you like to provoke me when > > you run out of arguments. > > Why should I assume that you'll take really innocuous slang incorrectly? > You spend a lot of time arguing, in English, correctly, on the internet. > It makes sense to assume that when you see a colorful turn of phrase, > your reaction would be "That is a colorful turn of phrase...", not "I'm > outraged that I am being accused of serious drug abuse!". > > And where have I possibly run out of arguments? > > > Good for you. Here we mainly don´t have the opportunity to pick and > > choose. People turn up, people play. Just like a tournament. > > And it honestly never occured to you that it might make sense to adjust > your play style when teaching someone new? 5 people sit down at a game, > one of them is brand new and just learning the game, and no one says > "This guy is new and just learning the game. Everyone play a relatively > simple deck for his sake..." Really? Or are you just trying to support > your argument with an unrealistic description of a harsh and draconian > play environment? No, my description is realistic. As a matter of fact, it´s totally true. > > See above. And when you say that my arguments "make no sense", do you > > mean that you don´t understand what I am saying? Because I understand > > yours, I just don´t agree. > > "Argument makes no sense" generally means "that argument is a bad one". > You make perfect sense, generally speaking, in a "I can understand the > words you are saying" sense. OK then. I saw Ben Peal wanted this thread to die, so I can agree to disagree now. I want non-broken/better/less complicated cards, but you like most of what WW is doing.

On 2 Okt, 23:11, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <d517ad40-a747-41dd-9fa8-d767cfa33...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Yes, I think Lost in translation is a bad card. I don´t see myself > > using it in any deck. Why should I? And Eternal Mask - in what > > competitive deck should I use it? > > Well, lots of folks disagree on Lost in Translation. That you can no > longer look at your prey, not see dom or AUS, and automatically assume > no bounce is *huge*, even if someone isn't using it. It is expensive. > And not as good as Deflection or Telepathic Misdirection. But its very > existence is *incredibly* significant. And it sees play on a regular > basis. You might not like it. But to claim that it is "unplayable" is > just absurd. OK, I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck and strike the world with surprise. > And you really can't see how Eternal Mask is good? Honestly? +1 bleed > and +1 stealth at ser? Obf/Ser S+B? With Settite weenies? Waters of > Duat? Honestly not seeing something that works there? No. I go with pre and Legal+obf stealth. > > So, you are aware that people on this newsgroup don´t "get" your > > slang, but still you continue to use it? > > Sure. Consider it me bringing the world together. It isn't like I'm > accusing you of "twirling the mongoose" or anything. "That is insane" > and "Are you on crack?" seem like they should be easy enough to > understand as colorful phraseology cross culturally. OK. I think you should cut the colourful slang and stick to reason and good arguments. It saves time and makes you appear more serious.

On Oct 2, 11:30 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I see no point doing this with a set that was released so recently and > is about anarchs. But here is a list from LotN (which is a VERY good > set compared to, say, NoR) > xAgent of Power C Very useful in some decks, especially Bloodlines. > xArmor of Vitality C/PR2 Umm... this is a pretty good card, I've used it quite a bit. Prevent 3 damage at inferior is very nice when facing Carrion Crows or such. > xAutonomic Mastery U The superior mostly sucks but "burn ally as strike" at inferior is bad? What? > xBestow Vigor R Ok, this one is pretty craptastic :) > xBloodlust R Excellent card in decks built to use it. > xBrute Force C/PG3 Great for potence melee weapon decks. Which, granted, aren't the most popular things around, but still... wouldn't call this a bad card. > xBundi C/PG3 What? A melee weapon that's immune to Grapple, and you call it bad? Que? > xBurden the Mind C Somewhat weak, yes. Might be useful in a deck built around it. Dunno. > xCold Aura C The "set range" version *rocks*. > xCommand the Legion R Well, yeah. If you have dominate and enough stealth to push this through, why not just bleed? > xCommunity Justice R Pretty crap, yes. The requirement for the diablerized vampire to be of the same clan kills any usefulness this may have had. > xConceal R What? Burn a location or equipment bad? Sure, it's not at stealth, but decks with Obf can get that easily. I've used this to great effect, myself. > xDivine Image U Pretty bad, yes. Too expensive... if you want to fight with Serpentis, Skin of the Adder is much better. > xEluding the Arms of Morpheus C/PG2/PS2 What??? I use this all the time, it's become one of my staple wake cards. Sure, it costs a blood, but the true untap is golden. Baali especially *love* this card, and it's not bad for intercepty decks in general (wake, and if you fail to intercept you're still untapped and ready for the next one). > xThe Eternal Mask C The superior is weird, but the inf +1 bleed at +1 stealth is quite solid. Not bad at all. > xFantasy World R A bit cornercase, yes. The effect is nice, but it's trivial to get rid of it and it costs 2 blood to play. Might be useful for a lunge, but... dunno. > xFillip C/PR2 I've seen this used to very good effect. > xForearm Block C Yeah, somewhat weak. Might be useful for some ally decks that lack other forms of defense, but... cornercase. > xGramle C Que? The ability to search for a card is bad? What what what? > xHard Case R Somewhat specialized, but pretty fun for intercept decks that have fortitude. Nice for suprise burns of nasty equipment (Ivory Bow, Assault Rifle, etc). > xHide the Mind R A bit weak, thought the superior gives you the ability to kill Auspex bounce which can be really good at times. > xJericho Founding C Weak, agreed. > xKpist m/45 U This is actually not bad at all, but needs a specialized deck (think Magazine + Glaser Rounds). > xLesser Boon R Very nice for an (intercept) deck built to take advantage of it. > xLost in Translation C/PA Ummm... what? A disciplineless bounce is bad how? > xMercury's Arrow C Allows for a pure-celerity deck to do damage without using guns. > xMesu Bedshet C/PS You've apparently never seen this card in action. Bad, not. > xNightstick U I actually think this is a great defensive card. Either prevent damage or do some extra, as the situation warrants. > xOpen Dossier C What? This is essentially a 2nd tradition for contract-holders, with an added maneuver. That's bad... how exactly? > xPermanent Vacation R Yeah, a bit weak. > xPoison the Well of Life R Can be pretty good in some metagames, and very good in a blood-denial deck (kill those pasky hunting grounds). Situational, of course. > xPowerbase: Savannah R Weak, agreed. > xPrecision R I a deck built to use it, I can see this being pretty nice actually. > xPromise of 1528 U Pretty crap. > xResume the Coil R Well, it's not bad card for a deck that thinks it may end up in torpor now and then (i.e. a combat one). Also useful with Graverobbing. > xSheepdog R Generally weak, but Baali like this one. > xShell Break C Weak, but I have some ideas around this one. The fact that it's not at stealth makes it pretty bad, though. > xSoul Feasting R Good in specialized decks. > xStreet Cred C A lot of people have tried to use this, I'm not sure if anyone has been successful. It seems like a nice card, but in practice it's pretty cornercase. > xStrike at the True Flesh C Have seen this used to good effect. > xSwiss Cut R Great in specialized decks (think Alan Sovereign). > xSympathetic Agony R Crap, agreed. > xTalith U/PR Umm, what? +1 damage or destroy weapon, at no cost. Bad? > xTarget Hand R What what what? This is a *great* card. Combine with Trap for some easy, disciplineless mayhem which also destroys weapons as a side effect. What's not to love? > xTarget Leg R The only bad Aim card, this. Mostly useless. > xTrochomancy C What drugs are you on? This card *murders* recursion decks (Imbued, Anthelios, etc), and provides nice bleed+ in most general cases. This is a great card. > xTrophy: Library R +2 hand size bad? Umm... ok. Sure. It might not be the best Trophy around, but by no means is it the worst either. > xUnderbridge Stray U Just yesterday I got my ass kicked by a deck which used these to good effect (Cock Robin). Bad, not. > xUndying Tenacity C Again, what? It's a version of Undead Persistence, with slight differences. UP is a great card, I don't see this as being any different. This (or UP) + Trap means evil things. > xUrban Jungle R Specialized, but very nice in some decks. Have used it. In general, I really don't understand your criteria. I'd only say a very small portion of the cards you claim are "useless" are actuall that. Sure, some are quite specialized. That's very different from "useless". //Petri

On Oct 2, 7:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ya know, this is the second time this has come up. I'm pretty sure you > are from Europe. And the last time this came up, it was someone from > Europe (Finland possibly based on your name? Maybe in Finland everyone > takes crack very, very seriously?). So maybe it is something lost in > translation. Finland has really strong anti-drug propaganda going on -- which is ironic since everyone drinks very heavily. So it's considered quite ok for someone to drink until they pass out, but if you smoke a joint you're a "druggie". It's a bit silly, but there you go. Yes, I'm from Finland myself. And I appreciate a joint now and then, in addition to the nationally-mandated large amounts of booze. But I digress :D ....and yeah, it's probably also a language/slang barrier thing. As you note, in the U.S. saying "are you on drugs/crack?" is a common saying, and *doesn't* mean that someone really thinks someone else is actually on drugs, it just means that they think that person is out of his mind or being silly. If you're not familiar with the slang, it can come off as insulting, especially to someone who has been brought up in a "drugs are baaaaad, m'key?" environment. //Petri

> A couple of friends came to me one time and > begged me to do a code review of a revamped area they'd designed, > because the playtesters weren't doing it. Playtesters were walking up > and down going "Oh, how pretty" but not actually finding the things > they were supposed to - bugs, typos, suggestions for how to make it > better, sub-optimal commands. With so many more people "testing", > everyone could just assume that someone else would do it. It's so true... *wipes tear* ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] I just don´t get why the guy writes stuff that has nothing to do with the issue. AND could be taken as an insult! Obviously I am taking this serious, I am not "out of my mind" or "bing silly", and he knows that. He just want´s to make me feel bad, instead of showing strong arguments. Leave it now, Ben Peal want this thread to die.

On Oct 3, 2:49 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > OK, I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck and > strike the world with surprise. Sigh. Yeah. That'll help. You could also put Loss in your mono-potence deck too, claim it isn't helping, and then claim that Loss is a bad card if you want as well. > No. I go with pre and Legal+obf stealth. Then why are you buying any new cards at all? Everything you want to use already exists. By this logic, WW should have stopped making cards 7 sets ago. > OK. I think you should cut the colourful slang and stick to reason and > good arguments. It saves time and makes you appear more serious. At what point have I indicated that I wish to appear more serious? -Peter

On Oct 3, 2:43 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > No, my description is realistic. As a matter of fact, it´s totally > true. This strikes is as *far* more of a problem for getting new players than the existance of Nights of Reckoning. If you and the people you are playing with are unwilling to adjust your mode of play to accomadate new players and help them learn the game, you are just shooting yourselves in the foot far more than complicated rules are. -Peter

On Oct 3, 7:47 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > I just don´t get why the guy writes stuff that has nothing to do with > the issue. You'll note that this whole side discussion of "I'm upset that you are accusing me of smoking crack!" came up in what was clearly disbelief at your assesement of cards in the LotN set. And if you had simply ignored the colorful metaphor and instead continued to discuss the cards at hand, we'd have avoid this whole thing. > AND could be taken as an insult! Obviously I am taking this > serious, I am not "out of my mind" or "bing silly", and he knows that. And yet I find your assessment of various cards in the LotN set to be completely preposterous. And by "assessment", I mean "off hand dismissal with no actual justification". I'm sure you are taking this seriously (far too seriously, to be frank, if you find that someone asking "are you on crack?" to be offensive). That doesn't mean I don't think your argument is absurd. > He just want´s to make me feel bad, instead of showing strong > arguments. Uh, yeah. That is exactly what I'm doing. I'm trying to make a grown man feel bad by facetiously asking "are you on crack?" in a discussion about cards. > Leave it now, Ben Peal want this thread to die. Damn. 108. -Peter

On Oct 3, 4:11 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > What drugs are you on? Careful now. Might cause an incident. -Peter

On Oct 3, 6:47 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I just don´t get why the guy writes stuff that has nothing to do with > the issue. AND could be taken as an insult! Obviously I am taking this > serious, I am not "out of my mind" or "bing silly", and he knows that. > He just want´s to make me feel bad, instead of showing strong > arguments. But what kind of arguments would you make against someone that says "Dominate is the worst discipline in the game, it's virtually unplayable. I have no idea why anyone would even think about using dominate." or "Voter Captivation is so cornercase. You have to get a vote to pass, and how many times do you actually see votes passed? Having to get the whole table to agree is not worth it." This person is obviously playing a different game than you, or, alternately, is on crack. Crack so good it makes you wanna slap your mama. I don't know what game you're playing, or what your definition of useless is, but discounting every card that isn't obviously better than everything that already exists is just silly. Lost in Translation is a good card. It can basically go in any deck that doesn't have DOM or AUS and has a big vampire to use it. It's not great, but bounce is huge. It's defense + offense, and having it without a discipline requirement is game-changing. If we can't agree on that, then I don't see how we can reconcile your feeling that LotN is mostly unplayable wallpaper and mine (and I believe Peter's as well - though I don't want to overstate his position) that it's one of the better sets that White Wolf has put out. > Leave it now, Ben Peal want this thread to die. Ben Peal ain't the boss of me. Or Peter. Or, presumably, you. I hope that Peter will continue to post non-stop until this thread reaches 2000 posts. If it pisses off someone, Ben Peal or otherwise, all the better! ;)

On Oct 1, 1:20 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > How about > posting cards and mechanics that are in playtesting for all players to > make comments about? What do you think? > > In this way we might prevent the unplayable/too powerful/stupid cards > from ever being printed. I think that a staggeringly large proportion of the 100+ posts in this thread demonstrate the very reason an "open playtesting forum" is an untenable proposition.

On Oct 2, 2:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Pullen <mattp3...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> X Anarch Manifesto, An C: crap from what I can tell > > > I dunno about this one. I looked at this and immediately built a deck > > around it. Seems very powerful in a weenie pre (only) stealth bleeder > > based on Undue Influence. Haven't tried it out yet, but I can't see > > how bleeds of 3 (that double as bloat) at 3 stealth are anything but > > good. (Power of One and Club Illusion round out the bleed and > > stealth.) > > Because it's a 1 stealth equip action that gets blocked and causes your UI > dude to go to torpor? That's why it's bad. Couldn't this be said about 99% of the actions a minion could take? And besides, who says there isn't additional stealth in the deck. Anonymous Freight, Jack of Both Side, Creepshow Casino, Anarch Railroad ... Though personally if I was looking for permanent stealth for a mono-presence deck, I'd go with some coffee ghouls (Marijava Ghoul) as well. On Oct 2, 11:49 pm, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 2 Okt, 23:11, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > And you really can't see how Eternal Mask is good? Honestly? +1 bleed > > and +1 stealth at ser? Obf/Ser S+B? With Settite weenies? Waters of > > Duat? Honestly not seeing something that works there? > > No. I go with pre and Legal+obf stealth. So, no desire to try something different? Too bad there's a bunch of Setites you pass over because they don't have presence/ofuscate. And shame you pass over Allonzo Montoya. Even if you prefer not to use it, I fail so see how you can consider it a bad, unplayable card. That's like saying Bonding is a useless unplayable card because you could simply play Conditionings and some stealth discipline. On Oct 2, 11:59 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Oct 2, 1:05 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > > Warrant - No stealth on the vote is the killer for me. > > No what now? Are you sure... it's a political action card, which, > just like equipment, are at +1 stealth. As far as I can tell, it > doesn't otherwise on the card... Thanks again for the smack upside the head about this (slang for "enlightening me about the fact that I was wrong in my assumption"). My Alastor deck has two of these now for the Storyline. Chris, Thrall of Arika

demonturtle wrote: > Well, here is a perspective from a newer player of the game who was > done open playtesting for a CCG, namely Shadowfist. > > I playtested for the game in both of its phases, the owned-by-a- > company phase and a owned-by-a-group-of-players phase. The first was > not secretive, but you had to sign something. For the second, it > kinda became a free-for-all. PT was never entirely open, but the > majority of the player base participated and knew what was going on > and discussed it ad nauseum. > > The major problems with open testing were twofold. One, tons of > light, very little heat in terms of comments. When we went to phase 2 > the design team tried to set up a system for rating cards, and it > kinda worked, but it still seemed that subjective considerations > frequently trumped game design parameters. Lots of different > perspectives, but lots of assessments not based on either cohesiveness > of the set or how cards and strategies fit into the overall design of > the game. > > Two, the amount of comments was staggering, and everyone wanted to be > heard and considered. I think part of the reason that the last set > for the game has taken sooo long to put together, and why some of the > design team resigned, was because of the playtest format. Too much > info, too many personalities, and too many tangents. It did not help > that playtest sets were enormous and all playtest groups got the > entire wad of cards. > > I PTed for two sets, but just kinda lurked after that. I found that > my comments got buried in an avalanche of disagreements and verbose > comments not formatted to talk about game design. While I think the > current VTES playtest system could be improved, I don't think open PT > is the way to go. > > Cheers, > > John I note that no one has a response to this, the only *non-theoretical* comment in the bunch. Ignoring the rest of this thread, AFAIAC, John has answered Ashur. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Darby Keeney <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that a staggeringly large proportion of the 100+ posts in this > thread demonstrate the very reason an "open playtesting forum" is an > untenable proposition. Darby is wise. Listen to Darby. John Eno

On 3 Okt, 14:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 3, 2:49 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > OK, I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck and > > strike the world with surprise. > > Sigh. Yeah. That'll help. You could also put Loss in your mono-potence > deck too, claim it isn't helping, and then claim that Loss is a bad > card if you want as well. Loss? What are you taking about? Loss is a very strong card that make the Assamites much more playable. Giving setites a card that is +bleed and +stealth is not the same thing. > > No. I go with pre and Legal+obf stealth. > > Then why are you buying any new cards at all? Everything you want to > use already exists. By this logic, WW should have stopped making cards > 7 sets ago. They could make innovative cards, like Loss. Not cards like Poison the Well of Life and Target Leg. > > OK. I think you should cut the colourful slang and stick to reason and > > good arguments. It saves time and makes you appear more serious. > > At what point have I indicated that I wish to appear more serious? OK, I am sorry, I misunderstod your intentions here.

On 3 Okt, 15:10, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Oct 3, 6:47 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I just don´t get why the guy writes stuff that has nothing to do with > > the issue. AND could be taken as an insult! Obviously I am taking this > > serious, I am not "out of my mind" or "bing silly", and he knows that. > > He just want´s to make me feel bad, instead of showing strong > > arguments. > > But what kind of arguments would you make against someone that says > "Dominate is the worst discipline in the game, it's virtually > unplayable. I have no idea why anyone would even think about using > dominate." or "Voter Captivation is so cornercase. You have to get a > vote to pass, and how many times do you actually see votes passed? > Having to get the whole table to agree is not worth it." And who say this? I don´t say this! It would help if you bothered to read my posts, instead of trying to pin these quotes on me (or what you are trying to do, I´m not sure). > This person > is obviously playing a different game than you, or, alternately, is on > crack. Crack so good it makes you wanna slap your mama. I don't know > what game you're playing, or what your definition of useless is, but > discounting every card that isn't obviously better than everything > that already exists is just silly. It´s not what this is about. It´s about if the card is ever worth putting in a deck at all. And the "colourful slang" is totally a waste of time. Just go with "I think you are wrong", followed by some solid arguments. > Lost in Translation is a good > card. It can basically go in any deck that doesn't have DOM or AUS > and has a big vampire to use it. It's not great, but bounce is huge. > It's defense + offense, and having it without a discipline requirement > is game-changing. My experience is that I have never seen anyone use Lost in Translation, and I have only seen it in one decklist of a winning deck on the net. On those grounds I cannot see why I should deem it as a good card. > If we can't agree on that, then I don't see how we > can reconcile your feeling that LotN is mostly unplayable wallpaper > and mine (and I believe Peter's as well - though I don't want to > overstate his position) that it's one of the better sets that White > Wolf has put out. Again, bother to write my posts and don´t put words in my mouth. I have never said that LotN is "mostly unplayable Wallpaper". On the contraty, I have said that it is a good set. > > Leave it now, Ben Peal want this thread to die. > > Ben Peal ain't the boss of me. Or Peter. Or, presumably, you. I > hope that Peter will continue to post non-stop until this thread > reaches 2000 posts. If it pisses off someone, Ben Peal or otherwise, > all the better! ;) That was my point. All the people who think they are moderators here don´t understand what a newsgroup is about, I guess.

[ quoted text not captured ] Why? You don´t have to do as we say, if you think it´s stupid.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don´t answer all posts. I think this was a good post, and I had not much to argue about in it. It was his experience of one type of open playtesting. I guess it could be done in other ways, for better/faster/ other result?

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 3 Okt, 14:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Then why are you buying any new cards at all? Everything you want to >> use already exists. By this logic, WW should have stopped making cards >> 7 sets ago. > > They could make innovative cards, like Loss. Not cards like Poison the > Well of Life and Target Leg. wait, what? Loss is innovative but poison the well of life and target leg are not? Define 'innovative' here. I'd expect it to mean something like 'interesting concepts that do things not previously done before'. Bleed at +2 bleed seems like, perhaps, it'd been done before, somewhere. Can't recall on what card I might have seen it. Burning everyone else's hunting grounds as a weird (d) against all of them action, or knee-capping someone so they can't move unless they have wings or magic, seem a lot more 'innovative' to me. Sure, Loss is a much stronger card, but I don't think 'innovative' is the right word to associate with it. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

In message <cd4a1eee-211a-4e01...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >On 3 Okt, 14:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Oct 3, 2:49 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> > OK, I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck and >> > strike the world with surprise. >> >> Sigh. Yeah. That'll help. You could also put Loss in your mono-potence >> deck too, claim it isn't helping, and then claim that Loss is a bad >> card if you want as well. > >Loss? What are you taking about? Loss is a very strong card that make >the Assamites much more playable. Giving setites a card that is +bleed >and +stealth is not the same thing. He's pointing out that not all cards go in all decks, and dismissing Lost in Translation because it won't work in a mono-Potence deck is about as weird as you can get. Mono-Potence is typically quite small and aggressive, and doesn't have large vampires on hand (which are needed to make Lost in Translation playable), and often is very aggressive (without too many Wakes or whatever) - although some decks might want to branch out into Touch of Pain, but that's not usual. As a result, tossing Lost in Translation into an inappropriate deck is unlikely to be wildly successful. Dismissing Lost in Translation because it won't work in an inappropriate deck isn't making a strong case. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <10ec507c-978e-4765...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] For a start, it flies entirely in the face of your suggestion that players will only post throw-away "This card sucks, make it +2 stealth", and you won't get hundreds of detailed points being made. Many players do make long posts. Reading and properly digesting a thread this long takes time. Sure, you could skim it for responses that back up your own pre-conceived ideas, but that's just pointless. Now multiply it up for discussions about large numbers of cards that are in flux, including the flip-side of unplayable cards - the screams of anguish about how broken cards are. Ever seen a PTO thread? Yeah, that's only one-line, easily digested responses. Then have it take place over months, with each necessary revision to a card re-igniting arguments. Also toss in many requests for rulings on how specific cards work, in specific revisions - good quality playtesters will likely already know how to read card text, or infer things from pre-existing rulings. Add the fun of players modifying cards for their own needs to taste. ("Yeah, last night we playtested it like this... and it worked fine.") No extra work involved at all, obviously. I'm reminded of the threads that have been had in the past where people suggested we change the tournament reporting and scoring system back to the old ELO style. (Or to a similar scheme that used equivalent information.) "Oh, but players can easily fill in that information!" they cried. Except they didn't, and certainly not in a timely fashion. Years of experience from actually seeing that players didn't fill in all the details that V:TES ratings of that style needed were just ignored by players wishing that wasn't the case. Here, amongst other things, you've been claiming how an open playtest would involve so little extra work, and players wouldn't involve long posts (because people wouldn't write those), which flies in the face of all the years where people have done that, and continue to do that. The recent thread on banning DI? Nah, no-one writes long involved posts about one card. Many similar threads on other cards people have wanted errata-ed/banned/changed (PTO, Anarch Revolt)? Nah, those obviously weren't written. Players screaming about how cards that have been errata-ed/banned weren't a problem in the first place (Return to Innocence, the Imbued-related bans, Succubus Club, the seat switchers, whatever else you care to imagine)? Nope, players haven't written dozens, hundreds of posts on such matters. Threads that exploded into 200+ posts in 24-48 hours, when something controversial comes up in a ruling/card change/previewed card? Definitely never happened. For some reason, you think an open playtest wouldn't involve all the things that V:TES has always involved - people discussing anything and everything they feel like discussing about V:TES, in great depth, across a variety of forums, in a variety of languages, at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, the hat is dropped at a random time, so even the most innocuous change can spark dozens, hundreds of posts. This *really* happens. Just search through the archives of rec...jyhad for examples of threads with hundreds of posts in them, about the most bizarre and unpredictable of things. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - i think people in general should see all the hard work, and thought that came in making the cards, granted some cards are crap and maybe the imbued should have been done in another manner. Still overall, the game has matured wonderfully. Having said that, i personally want to thank LSJ, Peter, Ben Peal and all the rest for putting their extra time and effort in this sometimes thankless job. People shouldn't expect everything to be as handy as Loss or Govern the unaligned, in general all card games have crap cards. Its a way of using it and a manner by which you play or wish to have fun. I mean if you've dabbled in Magic before who would use thoughtlace or kjeldoran skycaptain!? We all understand that yes, there are cards which suck and their manner of use is left dubious, but that's what makes it fun to play in the end. Admittedly i played Pariah and Wynn together in a trophy deck, throwing out trophies for Pariah. Then getting it when you burned a redlist. its sort of slow but it was hilarious watching people get rushed by wynn and his "white dog". So its always a good thing to play with an open mind, sometimes a card becomes even better when a new card is brought to bear. Going to the topic however which i strayed away from, having a public testplay is often a double edged sword. Yes, you get input and actual game usage of the cards. But it often results in a biased view from other people what they want to happen for that card, the result of a small consensus of people deciding what is good for the rest of the populace. You might say that's whats happening now anyways, but then at least its not covered in the muck of what other players think the card should be and not what was decided to be the essence of the card.

In article <78864626-3232-4f98...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > And who say this? I don愒 say this! It would help if you bothered to > read my posts, instead of trying to pin these quotes on me (or what > you are trying to do, I惴 not sure). You did not say that. Nor was he claiming you said that. It was a metaphor (or simile? I always get those confused). Chris was comparing you saying "Lost in Translation is useless" and "Eternal Mask is useless" to someone saying "Dominate is useless". 'Cause, while it is a bit of an exaggeration, it is essentially the same kind of argument--you are saying something that is so out of the realm of sense that there isn't really an argument to be had, as we are clearly looking at the world from such incredibly different viewpoints that discussion is irrelevant. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <cd4a1eee-211a-4e01...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Loss? What are you taking about? Loss is a very strong card that make > the Assamites much more playable. Giving setites a card that is +bleed > and +stealth is not the same thing. Holy crap. Dude. Do you understand even basic debate concepts? You made a ridiculous claim to back up your assessment that Lost in Translation is a bad card. Saying "I'll put Lost in Translation into my weenie potence deck" is saying "I'll completely ignore what makes the card good and how to make it playable, throw it in a completely inappropriate deck, and then use that as an example of how it is bad" (just to be clear here, I know you didn't actually use those words. But that is the essence of your statement). I countered with "Why not thow Loss in the same deck and claim that is a bad card too". 'Cause putting Lost in Translation in a weenie potence deck (a deck in which Lost in Translation is going to be essentially useless) is just as useful as putting Loss in a a weenie potence deck (a deck in which Loss is going to be essentially useless). And if you put Lost in Translation into a deck where it will be essentially worthless and then use that as an example of how the card is bad, you are just presenting a pointless example. Lost in Translation does not do anything in a weenie potence deck. But in a deck with large vampires, the ability to play reaction cards, and no other bounce? A good card. As bounce is strong. Is it as good as Deflection? No. Of course not. But it provides a very powerful effect (i.e. bleed bounce) to a deck that otherwise would not have it. Which is strong. > They could make innovative cards, like Loss. Not cards like Poison the > Well of Life and Target Leg. How is Loss "innovative"? Loss is strong. Loss is very good. Loss is not "innovative". Loss is "Pay 1 blood for +2 bleed". Which is powerful. But hardly "innovative". Target Leg is actually "innovative". It is an interesting new card that does interesting new stuff. Yeah, it blows. But Target Hand is innovative too, and doesn't suck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <78864626-3232-4f98...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > My experience is that I have never seen anyone use Lost in > Translation, and I have only seen it in one decklist of a winning deck > on the net. On those grounds I cannot see why I should deem it as a > good card. And to come back full circle, this is *exactly* why public playtesting probably isn't a good idea. Here you are saying "I've never seen anyone use Lost in Translation, and haven't seen it much in winning net-decks. So it is a bad card." Without, apparently, ever actually using it. And you seem to have a strong opinion about a card that you have never actually used or seen used. Which does not make for, what do you say, good playtest data. [ quoted text not captured ]

as...@hotmail.com writes: > On 2 Okt, 00:57, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > In article > > <6c77ed4b-053a-449a-a98b-d8446b675...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > No. When every game timed because one player took 75 % of the game > > > time just by moving around 50 cards on the table? Maybe. > > > > Lots of things can do that. I agree that someone playing the Imbued can > > play slowly. Which is, indeed, irritating. > > If you introduce a mechanic that is all about manipulating your > ashheap and library ALOT every round, and putting 5+ cards on every > minion, then you are bound to have a game that takes alot of time and > a lot of frustration from everyone trying to understand what is > happening (why is he looking in his ashheap now?) and what minions > having which cards (lets see, that guy has Laptop, Bow, conviction A, > Champion, Jacket and that one has Tasha, sword, Hawg, conviction B, > etc etc). NoR was a very, very stupid set. Okay now, I'll issue you a challenge: If we ever meet (next EC perhaps?), I want you to play against me and my never-take-apart-always-tweak "Twist with Conviction" Imbued deck. And take a stopwatch and *time my turns*. Playing the Imbued took a lot of time way back when it was new and everybody was still learning how to play with them or agaist them. Just like all of us took a lot of time, back when we were just learning to play VTES. HG

Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> writes: > On Oct 2, 2:38 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Other reactive decks don't put that many permanents on the table at a > > time. > > You should play in Boston more. :) Or in Helsinki. A Cock Robin with two Guardian Angels, Leather Jacket, three Raven Spies, Palatial Estate, Owl Companion, Murder of Crows, .44, Perfectionist and a Vessel doesn't even rise eyebrows. The Imbued are amateurs compared to such "christmas tree" decks. HG

as...@hotmail.com schrieb: > I see no point doing this with a set that was released so recently and > is about anarchs. But here is a list from LotN (which is a VERY good > set compared to, say, NoR) > xHide the Mind R WHAT? This card is so good. If I play Bleed with some serious Obfuscate stealth I want at least 3 copies of this card. Why? Because Auspex is by far the most common intercept discipline in the game (remember: you can also cancel intercept with this card) so it can easily double as +2 stealth if you cancel and Enhanced Senses (for exmaple). And to cancel bounce (Telepathic Misdirection to Deflection ratio here is about 50:50) is even stronger. If your prey doesnt play Auspex you won´t need a whole lot of stealth so you will use your Dreams to get rid of this, no big deal.

Kushiel schrieb: > On Oct 2, 4:25 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: >> They should care John, because a good relationship with your retail >> chain is important for continued success of your product line. > > True enough, I guess. But... > >> We are selling NoR at much less than any other V:TES product but still >> no one ordered a single box in months. > > Has this affected how much business you do with White Wolf in terms of > buying other sets? Not really. But I am a very dedicated V:TES seller. Most shops aren´t and those are probably easily offended by such a set, especially since V:TES is not a hot seller anyway.

Janne Hägglund schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Right, but the Imbueds can easily have 4-5 christmas trees. And their abilities keep jumping on and off (convictions). Having played those decks and played against those I must say a Cock Robin with 20 permanents is easier to keep in mind as 4-5 Imbueds with heaps of stuff. If playing against Cock all you need to remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock. Against the Imbued you have to wage every turn how you are going to manage to pass them.

On 4 Okt, 11:44, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On 3 Okt, 14:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Then why are you buying any new cards at all? Everything you want to > >> use already exists. By this logic, WW should have stopped making cards > >> 7 sets ago. > > > They could make innovative cards, like Loss. Not cards like Poison the > > Well of Life and Target Leg. > > wait, what? Loss is innovative but poison the well of life and target > leg are not? > > Define 'innovative' here. I'd expect it to mean something like > 'interesting concepts that do things not previously done before'. Bleed > at +2 bleed seems like, perhaps, it'd been done before, somewhere. Can't > recall on what card I might have seen it. > > Burning everyone else's hunting grounds as a weird (d) against all of > them action, or knee-capping someone so they can't move unless they have > wings or magic, seem a lot more 'innovative' to me. > > Sure, Loss is a much stronger card, but I don't think 'innovative' is > the right word to associate with it. 'Innovative' as in making the Assamites do new stuff (in a good way) and a much more competitive clan. Sure, +2 bleed is nothing new, but it opens a new world for the Assamite player.

On 4 Okt, 12:42, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <cd4a1eee-211a-4e01-94ef-1736b8b6e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >On 3 Okt, 14:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2:49 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >> > OK, I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck and > >> > strike the world with surprise. > > >> Sigh. Yeah. That'll help. You could also put Loss in your mono-potence > >> deck too, claim it isn't helping, and then claim that Loss is a bad > >> card if you want as well. > > >Loss? What are you taking about? Loss is a very strong card that make > >the Assamites much more playable. Giving setites a card that is +bleed > >and +stealth is not the same thing. > > He's pointing out that not all cards go in all decks, and dismissing > Lost in Translation because it won't work in a mono-Potence deck is > about as weird as you can get. Mono-Potence is typically quite small > and aggressive, and doesn't have large vampires on hand (which are > needed to make Lost in Translation playable), and often is very > aggressive (without too many Wakes or whatever) - although some decks > might want to branch out into Touch of Pain, but that's not usual. > > As a result, tossing Lost in Translation into an inappropriate deck is > unlikely to be wildly successful. Dismissing Lost in Translation > because it won't work in an inappropriate deck isn't making a strong > case. So, WHEN should I use LiT? It being such a good card.

On 4 Okt, 13:00, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <10ec507c-978e-4765-b644-e2db6dd21...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] Why do you only see the negative effects? I think the effort would be rewarded. Also, you might regulate the feedback. For example, WW could post a card/mechanic idea at the WW site with a grade system (1-10 or so) and a text box with a low character maximum, and you have to login to write. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, there could be other ways too. This is one way to get the vtes community involved. I don´t think that would be so bad.

On 4 Okt, 15:49, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <cd4a1eee-211a-4e01-94ef-1736b8b6e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] You misunderstood me. By writing the stuff about the mono-potence deck and stunning the world with surprise, I meant just that. A deck that nobody thinks is able to bounce a bleed. I could just as much write "mono-Animalism deck". > > They could make innovative cards, like Loss. Not cards like Poison the > > Well of Life and Target Leg. > > How is Loss "innovative"? Loss is strong. Loss is very good. Loss is not > "innovative". Loss is "Pay 1 blood for +2 bleed". Which is powerful. But > hardly "innovative". Target Leg is actually "innovative". It is an > interesting new card that does interesting new stuff. Yeah, it blows. > But Target Hand is innovative too, and doesn't suck. No, the _aim mechanic_ is innovative, not the card Target Leg in itself. I have NO IDEA why some aim-cards where make much better than others (the same goes for archetypes). I think maybe more or "public" playtesting might have changed this.

On 4 Okt, 15:40, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <78864626-3232-4f98-8431-b74d48e9f...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And who say this? I don´t say this! It would help if you bothered to > > read my posts, instead of trying to pin these quotes on me (or what > > you are trying to do, I´m not sure). > > You did not say that. Nor was he claiming you said that. It was a > metaphor (or simile? I always get those confused). Chris was comparing > you saying "Lost in Translation is useless" and "Eternal Mask is > useless" to someone saying "Dominate is useless". 'Cause, while it is a > bit of an exaggeration, it is essentially the same kind of argument--you > are saying something that is so out of the realm of sense that there > isn't really an argument to be had, as we are clearly looking at the > world from such incredibly different viewpoints that discussion is > irrelevant. No, it is not "a bit" exaggeration, it´s a lot of exaggeration. It´s lame rherotics to imply that it´s the "same kind of arguement". Why not stick to the subject? You saying my opinions are "out of the realm of sense" are just more insults. Cut it, it´s below you. So, you say EM and LoT are good cards, I say I find them hard to be worth putting in a deck. I think cards that get printed should be able to use in competitive decks, not just as wallpaper. You disagree. Fine.

In article <ad3f605b-f470-4cf2...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > No, it is not "a bit" exaggeration, it´s a lot of exaggeration. It´s > lame rherotics to imply that it´s the "same kind of arguement". Why > not stick to the subject? 'Cause it is the subject. Part of a debate is often drawing a parallel between two arguments. As it makes what is going on clearer. > So, you say EM and LoT are good cards, I say I find them hard to be > worth putting in a deck. I think cards that get printed should be able > to use in competitive decks, not just as wallpaper. You disagree. Fine. And yet here you are still arguing with me. Eternal Mask and Lost in Translation are able to be used in competitive decks. That you claim otherwise indicates that either: A) You have an incredibly questionable understanding of the game. or B) You just aren't even trying. In either case, it makes your argument questionable. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d7213d43-f338-43eb...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > You misunderstood me. By writing the stuff about the mono-potence deck > and stunning the world with surprise, I meant just that. A deck that > nobody thinks is able to bounce a bleed. I could just as much write > "mono-Animalism deck". And yet you aren't actually going to do that. As you don't think Lost in Translation is worth using. And putting it in a completely inappropriate deck isn't going to make it seem worth using. > No, the _aim mechanic_ is innovative, not the card Target Leg in > itself. I have NO IDEA why some aim-cards where make much better than > others (the same goes for archetypes). I think maybe more or "public" > playtesting might have changed this. Maybe. Or it might just make trying to design cards much, much harder. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <099090d1-6a3b-48f4...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So, WHEN should I use LiT? It being such a good card. In a deck with big vampires, no other bounce, and the ability to react. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Okt, 18:38, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <78864626-3232-4f98-8431-b74d48e9f...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > My experience is that I have never seen anyone use Lost in > > Translation, and I have only seen it in one decklist of a winning deck > > on the net. On those grounds I cannot see why I should deem it as a > > good card. > > And to come back full circle, this is *exactly* why public playtesting > probably isn't a good idea. Here you are saying "I've never seen anyone > use Lost in Translation, and haven't seen it much in winning net-decks. > So it is a bad card." Without, apparently, ever actually using it. And > you seem to have a strong opinion about a card that you have never > actually used or seen used. Which does not make for, what do you say, > good playtest data. So you can´t just read the card and, based on experience of other cards and the game itself, have an idea of how good/bad it is, and why?

[ quoted text not captured ] As been stated earlier, it´s not only up to you (as the Imbued-player) how fast a table plays.

On 5 Okt, 13:42, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So if all your 4+ minions look like that (but each with different cards), it´s not kind of messy and hard to overlook the table? Especially for newbies? It´s not at all a problem?

On 5 Okt, 22:40, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <ad3f605b-f470-4cf2-ac5b-6b94a3ca8...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > No, it is not "a bit" exaggeration, it´s a lot of exaggeration. It´s > > lame rherotics to imply that it´s the "same kind of arguement". Why > > not stick to the subject? > > 'Cause it is the subject. Part of a debate is often drawing a parallel > between two arguments. As it makes what is going on clearer. It makes it clearer if the parallel is adequate. > > So, you say EM and LoT are good cards, I say I find them hard to be > > worth putting in a deck. I think cards that get printed should be able > > to use in competitive decks, not just as wallpaper. You disagree. Fine. > > And yet here you are still arguing with me. Of course. It´s great fun. > Eternal Mask and Lost in Translation are able to be used in competitive > decks. That you claim otherwise indicates that either: > > A) You have an incredibly questionable understanding of the game. > > or > > B) You just aren't even trying. > > In either case, it makes your argument questionable. OK, let´s check back in a year or two and see how much those cards have seen play. I think that´s the most fair way to see if a card is "good". And please, cut these well-dressed insults (and focus on arguments). You don´t need them.

On 5 Okt, 22:42, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <d7213d43-f338-43eb-9b30-beeec0411...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You misunderstood me. By writing the stuff about the mono-potence deck > > and stunning the world with surprise, I meant just that. A deck that > > nobody thinks is able to bounce a bleed. I could just as much write > > "mono-Animalism deck". > > And yet you aren't actually going to do that. As you don't think Lost in > Translation is worth using. What? Why? I told you I was going to. > And putting it in a completely inappropriate deck isn't going to make it seem > worth using. Now I don´t get you at all. If not for the surprise effect (in a deck without "bouncy" disciplines), when should I use LiT? Name a deck where LiT would fit. > > No, the _aim mechanic_ is innovative, not the card Target Leg in > > itself. I have NO IDEA why some aim-cards where make much better than > > others (the same goes for archetypes). I think maybe more or "public" > > playtesting might have changed this. > > Maybe. Or it might just make trying to design cards much, much harder. Yes, if you think taking part of (and grade) other players opinions are "hard".

On 5 Okt, 22:43, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <099090d1-6a3b-48f4-a506-58b776f58...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > So, WHEN should I use LiT? It being such a good card. > > In a deck with big vampires, no other bounce, and the ability to react. Like?

In article <f9a37a03-7ffd-48d5...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > What? Why? I told you I was going to. And it isn't going to do you any good. And you'll say "this card is bad. I put it in a deck. It didn't do anything." 'Cause your suggestion was "I'm going to put it in a weenie potence deck". Which is not going to make the card useful because: A) Weenie. Hard to be an older vampire if you are a small vampire. B) It is a reaction. Weenie potence decks don't tend to react much. If you are going to use a card, it might as well be in a deck that can actually benefit from it. > Now I don´t get you at all. If not for the surprise effect (in a deck > without "bouncy" disciplines), when should I use LiT? Name a deck > where LiT would fit. In a deck that can actually play the card. Which is not a weenie potence deck. Which was your initial suggestion. Which means either you don't actually know what the card does, aren't paying attention, or just threw out that example as a silly example. Lost in Translation goes in decks that have big vampires and no other bounce available. Nakthortheb multi action. Eze vote. Nosferatu politics. Assamite politics. Whatever. There are plenty of decks that use large vampires and have no bounce discipline. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d975535c-afb8-4177...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Of course. It´s great fun. Ok. Good. Then can we drop the pretense of either "I'm offended by your statements!" and "We don't agree! Fine!". > OK, let´s check back in a year or two and see how much those cards > have seen play. I think that´s the most fair way to see if a card is > "good". And please, cut these well-dressed insults (and focus on > arguments). You don´t need them. Once again, please drop the pretense of being offended and/or insulted. You are here to argue as it is fun. In arguments like this, people get asked if they are on crack. Or their arguments are called foolish. Or insane. It is how this works. And clearly, you are willing to play along, as otherwise, you would not respond "Of course. It's great fun." These cards see play already. All the time. All over the place. I see Lost in Translation and/or Eternal Mask (for example) on a regular basis (heck, I'm currently playing a Settite S+B deck with 18 Eternal Masks. And 9 Mess the Bedshet. And it is remarkably effective). The game does not revolve around net-decking. You clearly are not interested in experimentation in this game. You clearly only will play proven, consistiently winning strategies. And are not willing to try and build your own. This is not an insult, so please don't feign outrage. It is simply likely. And based on your comments. Which is fine. But not everyone sees the game the same way as you. Not everyone is willing to simply only ever play Legal Manipulation and obfuscate stealth. 'Cause they like trying new things and looking for new, interesting angles, and finding advantage in things that are not readily apparent. 'Cause that is what makes games like this interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <2f935962-c309-4a0b...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So you can´t just read the card and, based on experience of other > cards and the game itself, have an idea of how good/bad it is, and why? Sure you can. But that isn't playtesting. And you are making this argument in, what is, originally, a discussion about playtesting. You have indicated that you have a strong negative opinion on a card. That you have never played and never seen played. And are happy to point this out in discussion. If playtesting was full of public comments, this very thing (i.e. making statements about cards without actually using them) would muck up the playtest. As one of the main words in "playtesting" is "play". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 6, 12:03 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So you can´t just read the card and, based on experience of other > cards and the game itself, have an idea of how good/bad it is, and why? Sure you can. That's why it took something like a year or more before anyone realised that Sudario Refraction and Liquidation was ace.

[ quoted text not captured ] What about liquidation and Shambling hordes. Cos obviously liquidation is teh suxxorz..... And don't get me started on that utter piece of cardboard toast called Deal with the Devil. "What, I throw my hand away to get a new one? Are you on crack?"

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> And yet here you are still arguing with me. > > Of course. It愀 great fun. PETER, HE HAS JUST STATED HE IS A TROLL. STOP ENABLING HIM. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Oct 6, 4:55 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> And yet here you are still arguing with me. > > > Of course. It´s great fun. > > PETER, HE HAS JUST STATED HE IS A TROLL. > > STOP ENABLING HIM. > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ But Kevin, I am really enjoying my popcorn here. Can't someone just flame the troll a little? I hear they have a weakness to fire..... (Shuffles closer to fire, fresh pot at the ready...)

On 6 Okt, 00:35, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <f9a37a03-7ffd-48d5-9089-ed92df337...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > What? Why? I told you I was going to. > > And it isn't going to do you any good. And you'll say "this card is bad. > I put it in a deck. It didn't do anything." 'Cause your suggestion was > "I'm going to put it in a weenie potence deck". Which is not going to > make the card useful because: No, that was not what I wrote. I wrote "I´ll throw in a couple of LiT in my next mono-Potence deck". Again, bother to read what I write. > > Now I don´t get you at all. If not for the surprise effect (in a deck > > without "bouncy" disciplines), when should I use LiT? Name a deck > > where LiT would fit. > > In a deck that can actually play the card. Which is not a weenie potence > deck. Which was your initial suggestion. Which means either you don't > actually know what the card does, aren't paying attention, or just threw > out that example as a silly example. > > Lost in Translation goes in decks that have big vampires and no other > bounce available. Nakthortheb multi action. Eze vote. Nosferatu > politics. Assamite politics. Whatever. There are plenty of decks that > use large vampires and have no bounce discipline. OK, then I´ll try it in such decks. But putting LiT in for example Nosferatu politics means you have to take something else out, and I don ´t know if it´s worth it. Thanks for the examples.

On Oct 6, 1:36 pm, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 6 Okt, 00:35, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <f9a37a03-7ffd-48d5-9089-ed92df337...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > What? Why? I told you I was going to. > > > And it isn't going to do you any good. And you'll say "this card is bad. > > I put it in a deck. It didn't do anything." 'Cause your suggestion was > > "I'm going to put it in a weenie potence deck". Which is not going to > > make the card useful because: > > No, that was not what I wrote. I wrote "I´ll throw in a couple of LiT > in my next mono-Potence deck". Again, bother to read what I write. Frankly, mono pot is a small cap deck. Unless you are playing something experimental. From everything you have written so far, experimentation does not sound like your strong suit. So the assumption that you will put LiT in a weenie deck is quite reasonable. Which leads to the point that you are going to put the card in a deck that is utterly unsuited for it.

On 6 Okt, 00:44, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <d975535c-afb8-4177-a30a-ea79114d7...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Of course. It´s great fun. > > Ok. Good. Then can we drop the pretense of either "I'm offended by your > statements!" and "We don't agree! Fine!". Well, that´s not true. Arguing with you is both great fun and interesting - and I also feel insulted when you, instead of using arguments, imply that I´m on crack, are insane, etc. > > OK, let´s check back in a year or two and see how much those cards > > have seen play. I think that´s the most fair way to see if a card is > > "good". And please, cut these well-dressed insults (and focus on > > arguments). You don´t need them. > > Once again, please drop the pretense of being offended and/or insulted. > You are here to argue as it is fun. In arguments like this, people get > asked if they are on crack. Or their arguments are called foolish. Or > insane. It is how this works. And clearly, you are willing to play > along, as otherwise, you would not respond "Of course. It's great fun." See above. Both fun, and insulted. > These cards see play already. All the time. All over the place. I see > Lost in Translation and/or Eternal Mask (for example) on a regular basis > (heck, I'm currently playing a Settite S+B deck with 18 Eternal Masks. > And 9 Mess the Bedshet. And it is remarkably effective). The game does > not revolve around net-decking. All over _your_ place? So this means the card is good? > You clearly are not interested in experimentation in this game. On the contrary, I make new decks all the time, with new cards. I think it´s great fun to win with "weird" new cards. But generally, I get beaten by friends who have old decks, especially in tournaments. So I would like WW to make less wallpaper and more good stuff. Especially the rares. I would buy more boosters then, which is good for WW, and thereby, I guess, good for the game. > You > clearly only will play proven, consistiently winning strategies. And are > not willing to try and build your own. This is not an insult, so please > don't feign outrage. It is simply likely. And based on your comments. > Which is fine. But not everyone sees the game the same way as you. Not > everyone is willing to simply only ever play Legal Manipulation and > obfuscate stealth. 'Cause they like trying new things and looking for > new, interesting angles, and finding advantage in things that are not > readily apparent. 'Cause that is what makes games like this interesting. I agree. But I don´t think one thing automatically have to exclude the other, do you? Cards can be both worth playing for fun and in tournaments (which in my enviroment, where anyone plays any deck they like, is the same thing).

On 6 Okt, 00:46, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <2f935962-c309-4a0b-9934-d4e1fbe6d...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > So you can´t just read the card and, based on experience of other > > cards and the game itself, have an idea of how good/bad it is, and why? > > Sure you can. But that isn't playtesting. And you are making this > argument in, what is, originally, a discussion about playtesting. You > have indicated that you have a strong negative opinion on a card. That > you have never played and never seen played. And are happy to point this > out in discussion. If playtesting was full of public comments, this very > thing (i.e. making statements about cards without actually using them) > would muck up the playtest. As one of the main words in "playtesting" is > "play". I agree. My first post should have been longer, and all terms used should have been defined. The thread topic should have been 'Public "playtesting"', as I did not mean only ordinary playtesting, but generally forms of public input.

On Oct 6, 7:36 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > No, that was not what I wrote. I wrote "I´ll throw in a couple of LiT > in my next mono-Potence deck". Again, bother to read what I write. Now you are just being obtuse. "mono-potence" generally means "weenie- potence". As if you aren't using weenies, there isn't any reason to be mono-potence. As you clearly only ever play proven archetypes, I'm hard pressed to imagine that when you said "mono-potence", you meant something other than weenie mono potence. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry. What I meant was a deck with no bounce-disciplines.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, as I replied 3 times now, I meant a deck without bounce- disciplines. Could have written mono-Animalism or mono-Celerity.

On Oct 6, 9:55 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Sorry, as I replied 3 times now, I meant a deck without bounce- > disciplines. Could have written mono-Animalism or mono-Celerity. Well, ok. That is what the card is for. Providing bounce to decks that have no bounce discipline. As bounce is strong. Because Lost in Translation requires you to be an older vampire (and it costs 2 blood), it can't just willy-nilly get thrown into any bounceless mono- discipline deck. Especially as bounceless mono-discipline decks tend to run pretty small (i.e. all examples you give--mono-potence, mono- animalism, and mono-celerity--generally are weenie decks). And decks with small vampires tend to not be older than the bleeders. And tend not to have a ton of blood for the 2 blood bounce. Where Lost in Translation is strong is in decks that use big vampires and don't come with bounce disciplines. Large Settites (Nakthortheb, say). Eze vote decks. Big vampire superstar decks (Cock Robin and Enkidu both have mutli acting and untapping capabilities, are large, don't have bounce disciplines, and often act as superstars in superstar decks). Yes. You have to make room for them. But even in a blocky Cock Robin deck, having 3 or 4 Lost in Translations can be *huge*--someone comes to bleed you for a bunch. You try and block with your 2 or 3 Raven Spies. They manage to stealth past. You play Lost in Translation, sending a 4 stealth bleed of 5 to your prey, which they totally didn't see coming. This is where Lost in Translation is good. And when it is good, it is very good. And that it exists at all means, again, whenever you bleed someone, you can't just assume that they can't bounce you, as long as they are older than you and have 2 blood. Yes. It is true that big vampire superstar decks aren't that difficult to build with stray dominate for bounce, as big vampires aren't that hard to find with light dominate stuck on here and there. Or build a deck with 5 superstars and 7 dominate weenies. But Lost in Translation opens up even more areas for experimentation, and gives you the opportunity to avoid the "Oh. This deck would be awesome. If only I could get some bounce in..." part of deck building that hinders so many deck plans. Is it better than, or even as good as, Deflection? No. Of course not. And expecting it to be is just foolish. But it is a good card that changes the game environment up significantly. And can be very useful if the appropriate decks. -Peter

In article <65c261ae-905e-43c2...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Well, that愀 not true. Arguing with you is both great fun and > interesting - and I also feel insulted when you, instead of using > arguments, imply that I惴 on crack, are insane, etc. You should consider learning to not be insulted when people say things like "are you on crack?" and "that's insane". That is how discussions on the internet go. All things being equal, this discussion is surprisingly calm and flame free (which I would think indicates that I'm not really interested in insulting anyone); no one has been called an "ass hat", nor has anyone been compared to a nazi, both of which are good indications that the base discussion is a viable one. > I agree. But I don愒 think one thing automatically have to exclude the > other, do you? Cards can be both worth playing for fun and in > tournaments (which in my enviroment, where anyone plays any deck they > like, is the same thing). And usually they are--likely a lot more than you are giving them credit for. If you are familiar with the work of Matt Morgan and Ben Peal, every time I see them in tournament play, they are playing something crazy and new. With cards that look like total jank. And yet they win all the time. More than I can possibly imagine. With cards that people write off as wallpaper. There is likely something to that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 6, 10:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You should consider learning to not be insulted when people say things > like "are you on crack?" and "that's insane". That is how discussions on > the internet go. All things being equal, this discussion is surprisingly > calm and flame free (which I would think indicates that I'm not really > interested in insulting anyone); no one has been called an "ass hat", > nor has anyone been compared to a nazi, both of which are good > indications that the base discussion is a viable one. For frying freaking frogs sake (no i am not talking about the french). Peter, make me some bloody popcorn!!!!! mmmmmmm, bloody popcorn, the sedentary vampire's favourite snack!

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article > <78864626-3232-4f98...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > as...@hotmail.com wrote: >> And who say this? I don愒 say this! It would help if you bothered to >> read my posts, instead of trying to pin these quotes on me (or what >> you are trying to do, I惴 not sure). > > You did not say that. Nor was he claiming you said that. It was a > metaphor (or simile? I always get those confused). Metaphor is when you say something _is_ something else. Simile is when you say something is _like_ something else (or, as i remember it, is _similar_ to something else). The first star of the evening was a diamond, sparkling on a black velvet cloth as it flickered into visibility. <- metaphor The first star of the evening flickered into visibility, like a diamond sparkling on a black velvet cloth. <- similie Learning is fun! -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

[ quoted text not captured ] so what you're saying is imbued turns take a long time because *other* players aren't familiar with the cards, not because the imbued themselves are playing a lot of cards? so surely the answer would be to play imbued *more* often, so that the other players get to know the cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:gcasil$kcs$3...@news01.versatel.de... > Janne Hägglund schrieb: >> Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Oct 2, 2:38 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>>> Other reactive decks don't put that many permanents on the table at a >>>> time. >>> You should play in Boston more. :) >> >> Or in Helsinki. >> >> A Cock Robin with two Guardian Angels, Leather Jacket, three Raven Spies, >> Palatial Estate, Owl Companion, Murder of Crows, .44, Perfectionist and a >> Vessel doesn't even rise eyebrows. >> >> The Imbued are amateurs compared to such "christmas tree" decks. > > Right, but the Imbueds can easily have 4-5 christmas trees. And their abilities keep jumping on and off (convictions). Having > played those decks and played against those I must say a Cock Robin with 20 Exactly! What Johannes said. To the contrary of what the previous poster tried to suggest, the Imbued have no parallel in vampires as far as use of permanents on the table is concerned. Vampire decks can't possibly hope to keep up with minions that use conviction and power cards (plus use equipment and all the normal stuff besides), I don't care how many Raptors or Crows or other permanents you want to slam on Cock Robin. Cock Robin is ultimately the amateur in comparison, not the other way 'round. Fred

On 6 Okt, 22:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <65c261ae-905e-43c2-b21a-c44424afa...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Well, that´s not true. Arguing with you is both great fun and > > interesting - and I also feel insulted when you, instead of using > > arguments, imply that I´m on crack, are insane, etc. > > You should consider learning to not be insulted when people say things > like "are you on crack?" and "that's insane". That is how discussions on > the internet go. But does it have to be this way? Do you have to talk like this? > All things being equal, this discussion is surprisingly > calm and flame free (which I would think indicates that I'm not really > interested in insulting anyone); no one has been called an "ass hat", > nor has anyone been compared to a nazi, both of which are good > indications that the base discussion is a viable one. I have no idea why I should be surprised that grown ups can discuss a card game without calling eachother drug addicts or morons. > > I agree. But I don´t think one thing automatically have to exclude the > > other, do you? Cards can be both worth playing for fun and in > > tournaments (which in my enviroment, where anyone plays any deck they > > like, is the same thing). > > And usually they are--likely a lot more than you are giving them credit > for. If you are familiar with the work of Matt Morgan and Ben Peal, > every time I see them in tournament play, they are playing something > crazy and new. With cards that look like total jank. And yet they win > all the time. More than I can possibly imagine. With cards that people > write off as wallpaper. There is likely something to that. OK. I think Matt and Ben win because they are good at all aspects of the game, maybe especially table-talk. I guess also they win with such "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table - before it is too late. It´s a cool strategy. But my opinion is still that WW should stop printing wallpaper cards (although you don´t think those cards are wallpaper).

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, of course. But there also is the problem that there are alot of cards in play at the same time and alot happening in the imbued players turn, that all players need to take notice of. Do you understand what I am saying here? It´s not complicated. Also, the imbued decks generated alot of table hate (especially those with alot of Gehenna events), so they weren´t that popular. Many people I know didn´t even bother to buy any NoR (also because there wasn´t any cards in the set usable by vamps - smart move, WW!) - and so the imbued isn´t played that often (at lease outside of tournament play), and by that, people don´t learn how they work. If the mechanics would have been a bit more slick, a bit more like normal VtES, things have been different.

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 6 Okt, 22:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In article >> <65c261ae-905e-43c2-b21a-c44424afa...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > >>> I agree. But I don´t think one thing automatically have to exclude the >>> other, do you? Cards can be both worth playing for fun and in >>> tournaments (which in my enviroment, where anyone plays any deck they >>> like, is the same thing). >> And usually they are--likely a lot more than you are giving them credit >> for. If you are familiar with the work of Matt Morgan and Ben Peal, >> every time I see them in tournament play, they are playing something >> crazy and new. With cards that look like total jank. And yet they win >> all the time. More than I can possibly imagine. With cards that people >> write off as wallpaper. There is likely something to that. > > OK. I think Matt and Ben win because they are good at all aspects of > the game, maybe especially table-talk. I guess also they win with such > "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table - > before it is too late. It´s a cool strategy. But my opinion is still > that WW should stop printing wallpaper cards (although you don´t think > those cards are wallpaper). Honestly Ashur, how many iterations of +1 bleed, +2bleed can a company print? I think that there are a lot of cards that are cool in the recent sets. Some seem kind of crappy, but I have seen crappy cards turned into good cards by clever players (Descent into Darkness and Corporal Resevoir come to mind immediately). And it's my feeling that VTES has a lower jank card ratio than most other remaining CCGs. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

as...@hotmail.com writes: > On 6 Okt, 22:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > In article > > <65c261ae-905e-43c2-b21a-c44424afa...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Well, that´s not true. Arguing with you is both great fun and > > > interesting - and I also feel insulted when you, instead of using > > > arguments, imply that I´m on crack, are insane, etc. > > > > You should consider learning to not be insulted when people say things > > like "are you on crack?" and "that's insane". That is how discussions on > > the internet go. > > But does it have to be this way? Do you have to talk like this? You are just one man against the entire English speaking world. You have no chance whatsoever in compelling hundreds of millions of people to change the way they use their language, just because you don't like some of their sayings. Would all Swedes in the world change an aspect of the Swedish language, if one Finn demanded it? > > All things being equal, this discussion is surprisingly > > calm and flame free (which I would think indicates that I'm not really > > interested in insulting anyone); no one has been called an "ass hat", > > nor has anyone been compared to a nazi, both of which are good > > indications that the base discussion is a viable one. > > I have no idea why I should be surprised that grown ups can discuss a > card game without calling eachother drug addicts or morons. But they *are* discussing the game without calling each other drug addicts or morons. It's not *their* fault if *your* skills in English are not good enough to understand that. HG

Being too aggressive in pointing out faults in other people's arguments often leaves them cornered in a situation where they can either admit that they're wrong and feel publicly humiliated or shout back at equal aggression. The latter causes the discussion to devolve into pointless nit picking, the former gets more unlikely by each new post. Sometimes it's better to just apologize even if you know you're right and let the conversation move on. If you think this post is addressing you it probably is.

suolir...@gmail.com writes: [ quoted text not captured ] You make a fine point. I'll shut up an let things cool down. HG

On Oct 7, 10:55 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > OK. I think Matt and Ben win because they are good at all aspects of > the game, maybe especially table-talk. I guess also they win with such > "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table - > before it is too late. It´s a cool strategy. But my opinion is still > that WW should stop printing wallpaper cards (although you don´t think > those cards are wallpaper). I think it's your definition of 'wallpaper' that is raising the arguments. Wallpaper usually refers to a card that is made pointless due to another card doing much the same thing but cheaper (i.e. Chainsaw is wallpapered by Gas-powered Chainsaw. Both have the exact same effect, but Chainsaw is more expensive), or a card that has too strict an opportunity window or too costly an effect (Eyes of the Dead, Mummify, Mercy for the Weak, etc.). To consider, for example, +1 bleed at +1 stealth at inferior as wallpaper seems out of place. True, a Setite pre/obf deck would bleed more effectively, perhaps, with more cards needed to do so. But a deck focused on Serpentis, such as Entice decks, or Temptation/Corruption decks, would likely favour Eternal Mask. On Oct 7, 11:04 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Yes, of course. But there also is the problem that there are alot of > cards in play at the same time and alot happening in the imbued > players turn, that all players need to take notice of. Do you > understand what I am saying here? It´s not complicated. > > Also, the imbued decks generated alot of table hate (especially those > with alot of Gehenna events), so they weren´t that popular. Many > people I know didn´t even bother to buy any NoR (also because there > wasn´t any cards in the set usable by vamps - smart move, WW!) - Not technically true, there are two cards. Break the Code is specifically for non-Imbued decks, while Crusador Sword can be used by any minion with True Faith. Of course, using the sword for non-imbued requires a fair bit of work and certainly isn't Tier 1, but it's possible. I have my Crusading True Faith Muddled Vampire Hunter deck that needed tons of working parts, but it did win one game out of two. > and > so the imbued isn´t played that often (at lease outside of tournament > play), and by that, people don´t learn how they work. If the mechanics > would have been a bit more slick, a bit more like normal VtES, things > have been different. How much more alike would you have liked the Imbued to be? The only real mechanic that differs is Convictions, how they enter play and their use. Powers are simply actions that allow an untap if successful. Imbued are influenced out, just like vampires. Creeds are akin to Clans, Virtues akin to Disciplines. When they lose all their life, they enter a torpor-like Incapacitated region. Yes, the Imbued make it so that the other players have to pay attention more (hopefully not much more ... if you have players complaining about cards in play when they haven't been paying attention in the first place, then it's their own fault for not focusing on playing the game). There is more information to keep in mind, due to the number of cards in play. I wouldn't consider Nights of Reckoning as something for beginners to try out. Even WW seems to take this view, as Imbued rules are not included in the basic rules of the game (though this is likely more due to space considerations, and the fact that to have Imbued cards means you're likely to have the rules cards for them). Really, the more you see the cards, the more ingrained they become, especially if you take a few tries at playing them and using their cards. Chris, Thrall of Arika

In message <9a856666-95bb-4faa...@r15g2000prh.googlegroup s.com>, Thrall of Arika <christoph...@amec.com> writes: >Yes, the Imbued make it so that the other players have to pay >attention more (hopefully not much more ... if you have players >complaining about cards in play when they haven't been paying >attention in the first place, then it's their own fault for not >focusing on playing the game). There is more information to keep in >mind, due to the number of cards in play. It's also the case, however, that a player of an Imbued deck puts a lot more knowledge in the hands of the table. Do you know if my Arika deck has got any stealth in hand? Not really. Does my combat deck have a Torn Signpost or a Skin of Steel? Maybe, maybe not. An Imbued deck has far fewer transient options (and the good ones are reasonably well-known), and will be making more use of the things on the table. Checking Power cards may take a little time, but many players will also do things like sifting through a discard pile to see how many Wakes have been played so far. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In article <e1531101-d3fd-43ab...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > But does it have to be this way? Do you have to talk like this? Yes. 'Cause this is an entertaining, light hearted discussion. And in entertaining, light hearted discussions, people will occasionally say things like "are you on crack?". I say "are you on crack?", like, 5 times a day. Minimum. To people. All the time. In every day conversation. Again, I'm not calling you a nazi ass hat or something. 'Cause I'm not interested in insulting you (as I have no need to actually get het up to the point of insulting anyone in a silly conversation about a card game). But asking if someone is on crack, or calling something they say "insane" is simply every day conversation. Especially in the silly realm of discussion of card games on the internet. Heck. I post on this newsgroup, like, 100 times a day. And half the time I do so, I ask if someone is on crack. Or call something they say "insane". Heck, I once awarded Legbiter a special commendation for writing "the stupidest thing I ever heard". 'Cause that is how conversation goes around here. > I have no idea why I should be surprised that grown ups can discuss a > card game without calling eachother drug addicts or morons. I have never called you a moron. Nor have I actually called you a drug addict. Ever. Even if you are only capable of taking all things at the most absolute literal interpretation, I asked if you were on crack. To which you could say "Uh, no. I do not smoke the crack." What I am surprised by is that two grown ups can discuss a card game, and one of them can be so completely lacking in a sense of humor that they actually become offended when someone poses the question "are you on crack?" > I guess also they win with such > "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table The whole point is that they aren't winning with crappy decks. They are winning with good decks that are built out of cards that people think are crappy. Which would indicate to me that a great deal of the time, cards that people think are crappy aren't necessarily crappy. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 7, 4:45 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > The whole point is that they aren't winning with crappy decks. They are > winning with good decks that are built out of cards that people think > are crappy. ...or which are dismissed as being too limited in use. Unacceptable Appearance is my favorite of these examples of thinking outside the box rather than just dismissing a card as worthless because the obvious intent for its use isn't very good. John Eno

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8134fb15-1727-4122...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I missed the reference anyone putting Unacceptable Appearance to good use but basically, yea, I agree with the overall premise. I'm always frustrated when I bring up a deckbuilding app and have such trouble thinking of good new ideas or how to make a new idea work well. The really great deckbuilders seem to possess some combination of memory skills, experience, and imagination that allows them to fish out great decks where others just see dreck. And I'm sure part of that skill is seeing utility in cards which appear highly limited when injected into common deck themes. Fred

Howdy Fred, On Oct 7, 9:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8134fb15-1727-4122...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 7, 4:45 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > The whole point is that they aren't winning with crappy decks. They are > > > winning with good decks that are built out of cards that people think > > > are crappy. > > > ...or which are dismissed as being too limited in use. Unacceptable > > Appearance is my favorite of these examples of thinking outside the > > box rather than just dismissing a card as worthless because the > > obvious intent for its use isn't very good. > > I missed the reference anyone putting Unacceptable Appearance to good > use... That would be a reference to this deck: Templecon Friday Providence, Rhode Island 02/16/07 15 players Name: Unacceptable Boon Created By: Ben Peal Description: Yet another in my line of breed-boon decks. This one was born from a conversation with Brian Moritz at the 2006 NAC, where he mentioned using Unacceptable Appearance on your own !Nos. Legacy of Pander is the clear use of this, so I adapted my breed-boon template to !Nos-Pander. Greensleeves and Lukas (whose appearances on their cards are already unacceptable) get UA, then make Creation Rites babies. You eventually play Legacy of Pander for killer vote lock, and call Consanguineous Boons and KRCs. I didn't notice until after the fact that Lukas has inferior Serpentis, so throw in a couple Temptations or a Form of Corruption for added fun. Thanks to Matt Hirsch for running the event, and thanks to Grant, Ximon, and the staff of TempleCon for having us! Crypt (avg=4.25) 3 Greensleeves ANI OBF for pot 7 !Nosferatu Sabbat priscus 3 Lukas ANI OBF POT pre ser 8 !Nosferatu Sabbat Archbishop of Toronto 1 Olga Trimonov vic 1 Pander Sabbat 1 Feo Ramos aus 1 Pander Sabbat 1 Schuyler tha 1 Pander Sabbat 1 Kai Simmons cel 1 Pander Sabbat 1 Margarite obt 1 Pander Sabbat 1 Jaggedy Andy pot 1 Pander Sabbat 6 Unacceptable Appearance 4 Blood Doll 1 Creepshow Casino 1 Dia De Los Muertos 1 Barrens 1 Powerbase: Madrid 1 Direct Intervention 1 The Coven 5 Obfuscate 1 Crusade: Detroit 6 Legacy of Pander 8 Consanguineous Boon 11 Kine Resources Contested 9 Creation Rites 2 Forgotten Labyrinth 2 Elder Impersonation 3 Spying Mission 4 Swallowed by the Night 4 Lost in Crowds 4 Cloak the Gathering 3 Faceless Night 3 Domain of Evernight 2 Psychic Veil 6 Animal Magnetism 1 Break the Code

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually I thought that this was the major challenge for WW - making new cards that aren´t iterations of +1/+2 bleed, but still avoiding cards that are too weak or too strong, too complicated, too boring etc. Still, I think, these cards are being made. Many others seem to disagree, and jump of joy every time they pull a booster with Poison the Well of Life or Target Leg. > And it's my feeling that VTES has a lower jank card ratio than most > other remaining CCGs. Not a very strong argument to keep doing junk, IMHO.

On 7 Okt, 20:22, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > as...@hotmail.com writes: > > On 6 Okt, 22:54, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <65c261ae-905e-43c2-b21a-c44424afa...@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Well, that´s not true. Arguing with you is both great fun and > > > > interesting - and I also feel insulted when you, instead of using > > > > arguments, imply that I´m on crack, are insane, etc. > > > > You should consider learning to not be insulted when people say things > > > like "are you on crack?" and "that's insane". That is how discussions on > > > the internet go. > > > But does it have to be this way? Do you have to talk like this? > > You are just one man against the entire English speaking world. > > You have no chance whatsoever in compelling hundreds of millions of people to > change the way they use their language, just because you don't like some of > their sayings. > > Would all Swedes in the world change an aspect of the Swedish language, > if one Finn demanded it? The "entire english speaking world" don´t use the language as Mr Bakija does, does it? > > > All things being equal, this discussion is surprisingly > > > calm and flame free (which I would think indicates that I'm not really > > > interested in insulting anyone); no one has been called an "ass hat", > > > nor has anyone been compared to a nazi, both of which are good > > > indications that the base discussion is a viable one. > > > I have no idea why I should be surprised that grown ups can discuss a > > card game without calling eachother drug addicts or morons. > > But they *are* discussing the game without calling each other drug addicts or > morons. > > It's not *their* fault if *your* skills in English are not good enough to > understand that. Oh, me bad. Saying "Are you on crack?" doesn´t actually call someone a drug addict, it merely implies it. And not only do I not like it, I also think this kind of comments have nothing to do with the subject. What about saying "I strongly disagree" and deliver an argument that contradicts my argument? No, I guess that would be impossible. One thing I have learned is that bringing about drugs, insanity and stuff like that is that it often stirrs up feelings that was not suppossed to be stirred up. People have bad experiences from drugs and mental health problems etc. Do you agree to this, or am I wrong again?

[ quoted text not captured ] You know what, you keep arguing for expansions with no wall paper/ jank.So here is an interesting option for you. Go do what so many others have done before. Create your own expansion. Minimum 50 vamps, 300 library cards. Now as you keep arguing that the new cards are either boring (not innovative) or wallpaper (multiple examples) how about we state that there has to be 2 new mechanics in your expansion, no duplication of vampires currently within group 4-5, and no duplication (ie identical to currently existing cards in that discipline, barring cosmetic factors) of library cards. Do this, return not one single broken card. Lets see how much interesting things you can create without making anything that we would consider wallpaper/not innovative. If you are unable to do this, stop giving the design team attitude for producing mutliple interesting, innovative, playable expansions that contain only one banned card (Edge explosion, i think...), and near to 0 (YMMV) broken cards..... To simplify my statement, put up or shut up. (And no, the above sentence is not meant as rude, it is actually a common usage straightforward English statement. Not getting that probably means your on crack. Or insane. Or both.)

[ quoted text not captured ] Among the better comments I´ve ever read here. Note that I through this discussion have tried not to insult anyone, although all sorts of things has been implied about me. I apologize to anyone who although has felt offeneded by me.

On 7 Okt, 21:46, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 10:55 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > OK. I think Matt and Ben win because they are good at all aspects of > > the game, maybe especially table-talk. I guess also they win with such > > "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table - > > before it is too late. It´s a cool strategy. But my opinion is still > > that WW should stop printing wallpaper cards (although you don´t think > > those cards are wallpaper). > > I think it's your definition of 'wallpaper' that is raising the > arguments. Wallpaper usually refers to a card that is made pointless > due to another card doing much the same thing but cheaper (i.e. > Chainsaw is wallpapered by Gas-powered Chainsaw. Both have the exact > same effect, but Chainsaw is more expensive), or a card that has too > strict an opportunity window or too costly an effect (Eyes of the > Dead, Mummify, Mercy for the Weak, etc.). In that case, I´m sorry. I will refrain from calling cards that I think suck wallpaper from not on. > To consider, for example, +1 bleed at +1 stealth at inferior as > wallpaper seems out of place. True, a Setite pre/obf deck would bleed > more effectively, perhaps, with more cards needed to do so. But a deck > focused on Serpentis, such as Entice decks, or Temptation/Corruption > decks, would likely favour Eternal Mask. Yes, now that I have gotten this explained a couple of times, I will re-evalutate this card. There are still alot of other cards that I think suck. > On Oct 7, 11:04 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Yes, of course. But there also is the problem that there are alot of > > cards in play at the same time and alot happening in the imbued > > players turn, that all players need to take notice of. Do you > > understand what I am saying here? It´s not complicated. > > > Also, the imbued decks generated alot of table hate (especially those > > with alot of Gehenna events), so they weren´t that popular. Many > > people I know didn´t even bother to buy any NoR (also because there > > wasn´t any cards in the set usable by vamps - smart move, WW!) - > > Not technically true, there are two cards. Break the Code is > specifically for non-Imbued decks, while Crusador Sword can be used by > any minion with True Faith. Of course, using the sword for non-imbued > requires a fair bit of work and certainly isn't Tier 1, but it's > possible. I have my Crusading True Faith Muddled Vampire Hunter deck > that needed tons of working parts, but it did win one game out of two. Thanks for pointing this out, I forget so easly. Break the Code I have used. > > and > > so the imbued isn´t played that often (at lease outside of tournament > > play), and by that, people don´t learn how they work. If the mechanics > > would have been a bit more slick, a bit more like normal VtES, things > > have been different. > > How much more alike would you have liked the Imbued to be? The only > real mechanic that differs is Convictions, how they enter play and > their use. Powers are simply actions that allow an untap if > successful. Imbued are influenced out, just like vampires. Creeds are > akin to Clans, Virtues akin to Disciplines. When they lose all their > life, they enter a torpor-like Incapacitated region. This is a very complex question, or at least it calls for a long and complicated answer which I don´t have time to put forth right now. I recommend you googling my and others "Imbued-haters" in threads that has to do with the Imbued. > Yes, the Imbued make it so that the other players have to pay > attention more (hopefully not much more ... if you have players > complaining about cards in play when they haven't been paying > attention in the first place, then it's their own fault for not > focusing on playing the game). There is more information to keep in > mind, due to the number of cards in play. I wouldn't consider Nights > of Reckoning as something for beginners to try out. Even WW seems to > take this view, as Imbued rules are not included in the basic rules of > the game (though this is likely more due to space considerations, and > the fact that to have Imbued cards means you're likely to have the > rules cards for them). > > Really, the more you see the cards, the more ingrained they become, > especially if you take a few tries at playing them and using their > cards. Of course, but as I said, few bother as few like to play with or against imbued. This become a "downward spiral" of knowledge. Not good for the game.

On 7 Okt, 22:45, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <e1531101-d3fd-43ab-8c01-b23ed4054...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > But does it have to be this way? Do you have to talk like this? > > Yes. 'Cause this is an entertaining, light hearted discussion. And in > entertaining, light hearted discussions, people will occasionally say > things like "are you on crack?". I say "are you on crack?", like, 5 > times a day. Minimum. To people. All the time. In every day > conversation. Again, I'm not calling you a nazi ass hat or something. > 'Cause I'm not interested in insulting you (as I have no need to > actually get het up to the point of insulting anyone in a silly > conversation about a card game). But asking if someone is on crack, or > calling something they say "insane" is simply every day conversation. > Especially in the silly realm of discussion of card games on the > internet. > > Heck. I post on this newsgroup, like, 100 times a day. And half the time > I do so, I ask if someone is on crack. Or call something they say > "insane". Heck, I once awarded Legbiter a special commendation for > writing "the stupidest thing I ever heard". 'Cause that is how > conversation goes around here. So, by admitting that you do this alot, it should be ok? I really don ´t see the logic in this. > > I have no idea why I should be surprised that grown ups can discuss a > > card game without calling eachother drug addicts or morons. > > I have never called you a moron. Nor have I actually called you a drug > addict. Ever. Even if you are only capable of taking all things at the > most absolute literal interpretation, I asked if you were on crack. To > which you could say "Uh, no. I do not smoke the crack." > > What I am surprised by is that two grown ups can discuss a card game, > and one of them can be so completely lacking in a sense of humor that > they actually become offended when someone poses the question "are you > on crack?" Simple question: What is funny about crack? > > I guess also they win with such > > "crappy" decks because they don´t appear as threats on the table > > The whole point is that they aren't winning with crappy decks. They are > winning with good decks that are built out of cards that people think > are crappy. Which would indicate to me that a great deal of the time, > cards that people think are crappy aren't necessarily crappy. I respect that opinion.

In message <dac4f721-2544-4ec6...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroup s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >Oh, me bad. Saying "Are you on crack?" doesn´t actually call someone a >drug addict, it merely implies it. No, it doesn't. "Are you on crack?" implies "That idea is totally insane. I can't even begin to understand how you could think that." Similarly, there are many other phrases that do not imply the literal meaning of their words. Examples: - "Are you out of your tree?" does not imply that you have a tree, that you live in a tree, and that you have now left the tree. It implies that the speaker thinks you're nuts. - A journalist describing someone as "tired and emotional" does not, in general, imply that they were either tired or emotional. It implies that they were likely to be drunk and/or on drugs. - "Man, that tasted like shit" does not, in fact, imply that your cooking tastes like faeces. It just wasn't very pleasant. - "Look what the cat dragged in" can be uttered by people where there is no cat. It does not imply you have a cat. It does not imply you like cats. It does not imply you have train your cat to drag things in. It could be uttered in front of someone who is allergic to cats without causing them to panic. - A camp utterance of "Ooh, get her!" in response to a catty or bitchy statement does not necessarily imply that the target of the statement is female, or that they need to be 'got'. - "He's sleeping with the fishes" does not imply some sort of trout-related erotic need. Well, except in that one episode of The Simpsons. English is full of statements that are not meant to be taken literally. "Are you on crack?" is one of them. Don't believe me? This just popped into my inbox this morning from a mailing list I'm on about a difficult programming problem someone wanted to solve. I'm not sure the information you want exists outside of the <technical details elided>. Figuring out which one of those you got called with is left as an exercise to those with more crack handy. Absolutely, definitely the writer was implying that only drug addicts would be able to solve the problem. Oh no, wait, it *doesn't mean that*. Other sources: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Are%20you%20on%20crack%3F 2) 1. The actions/words you just displayed are unbelievable! 2. You're not your normal self, Jim. http://www.areyouoncrack.co.uk/ http://www.areyouoncrack.co.uk/about/ I write ‘Are You On Crack?’ for every mum that ever heard a stupid comment, got given unsolicited advice by a stranger in the supermarket, and often feels like hurling herself on the floor in a melodramatic tantrum. I don’t pretend to be superwoman, I’m not a manic, military precision, mum, and even though it’d be nice to think of myself as a Yummy Mummy sometimes, I don’t want to pigeon hole myself. See, no drugs, it's about stupid comments (and other things). http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080703204435AAr6m8Q and "crack" and "drugs" can be used, in further slang expressions, to mean someone is saying something so crazy, that they would only believe themselves if they were high on drugs, or worse, on crack. As in: "are you HIGH?!" "are you on drugs?" "are you on CRACK?!" This is how people talk. Language evolves. The phrase is intended to convey more than the literal words it uses, like so many other phrases. It does not imply the recipient is suspected of drug abuse. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <dac4f721-2544-4ec6...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroup > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: >> Oh, me bad. Saying "Are you on crack?" doesn´t actually call someone a >> drug addict, it merely implies it. > > No, it doesn't. > > "Are you on crack?" implies "That idea is totally insane. I can't even > begin to understand how you could think that." > > Similarly, there are many other phrases that do not imply the literal > meaning of their words. Examples: And, like "are you stupid?" or "are you retarded?", "are you on crack?" doesn't as much help the constructive content of the post as derail it. Best devices are ones that address the concept being debate, not the debater. Unless you're in politics, of course. But then, you shouldn't be posting here.

On Oct 8, 6:37 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Actually I thought that this was the major challenge for WW - making > new cards that aren´t iterations of +1/+2 bleed, but still avoiding > cards that are too weak or too strong, too complicated, too boring > etc. Still, I think, these cards are being made. Many others seem to > disagree, and jump of joy every time they pull a booster with Poison > the Well of Life or Target Leg. > Again with this. Listen, Target Leg is crap. No one ever said that there is *no* wallpaper being printed. There are a good 2 to 5 cards each set that are complete trash. The point of contention is the actual amount of wallpaper being printed, and whether or not it can be reasonably avoided. Poison the Well of Life is not wallpaper. It is very limited usage, but in the right metagame (there are some environments where everyone has their clan's hunting ground in almost every deck... or you may play against a number of people that have good decks that legitimately are better with the HG in them. Not to mention that Poacher's Hunting Ground (which I think you classified as wallpaper... *boggle*), being free and non-unique, could become very prevalent in certain environments, especially those mentioned above. In those cases, including a Poison the Well or Life, or two, is potentially called for. Especially if you're playing a blood denial deck, presumably using Foul Blood - Foul Blood isn't nearly as good if your prey/ predator has a hunting ground. It's not a card that goes in every deck that uses Quietus, but there's the potential for it to be useful in the right situation - that's why it's rare. Now when you talk about common cards that are of limited use, or actual wallpaper, that's when it starts to get annoying. I buy a box of LoTN, I get maybe one Poison the Well of Life. I put it aside in case I need it in a deck, and move on. Even if I never use it - it's one card in my collection. Now when I buy a box of Twilight Rebellion, I get like 15 Elixers of Distillation, a card which is, essentially, terrible - too much opportunity for it's effect. Someone may, someday, think of a good deck that can use the Elixer, but when that person thinks of that deck, they could easily have traded for all the Elixers in the world even if it were rare, so no one needs to get 15 of them in a box. To distill it down, in case you are a drug addict and are currently smoking crack (not saying you *are*, just saying in case...) - Rare cards of limited use - good. Common cards of extremely limited use or completely wallpaper - bad. I think that most of the cards you are complaining about are more of the former category. Of course, then there are the common cards that are extremely good that you for some reason call wallpaper, and that is why everyone on here (no, wait, everyone in the world), thinks you are a drug addict. (joking... I swear...) =)

On Oct 8, 7:49 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Among the better comments I´ve ever read here. Note that I through > this discussion have tried not to insult anyone, although all sorts of > things has been implied about me. People have certainly been implying that your views of what are or are not worthwhile cards in this game are questionable. If not outright wrong. Which is directly related to the argument at hand. Conversely, no one in this discussion has actually implied that: A) You are actually a drug addict. B) You are actually insane. C) You are in any way unintelligent. Or anything else that you might be envisioning is being implied about you. This is the internet. Where people go to discuss the innacuracies of "Earth II". During such discussions, people will occasionally throw around preposterous slang/metaphors/whatever. Yes. Sometimes it makes discussion difficult to follow if you are not a native English speaker. But that is how it goes, and to get all up in arms about it is silly. Once and a while, someone is going to ask "are you on crack?", much like once and a while, someone is going to call you something actually legitimately insulting, with the intent of insulting you legitimately. It is important (for your own sanity, if nothing else) that you become capable of determining the difference. -Peter

On Oct 8, 7:45 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > Oh, me bad. Saying "Are you on crack?" doesn´t actually call someone a > drug addict, it merely implies it. But not in any remotely realistic sense. If someone says "are you nuts?" in response to you suggesting that you go out to a bad movie, are you going to get upset because they are impying that you have a mental illness? > And not only do I not like it, I > also think this kind of comments have nothing to do with the subject. It has to do with the subject as much as any statement of disbelief does. Would you even blink twice at someone saying "are you crazy?" Or "That's nuts."? That this ridiculously long tangent has gone on about this results completely from you misunderstanding something, not from any intent to actually call you a drug addict. > What about saying "I strongly disagree" and deliver an argument that > contradicts my argument? No, I guess that would be impossible. Sure. You could do that. But then the world would be devoid of interesting writing. Again, this is arguably a goofy, light hearted forum. Having discussions about things of little actual import. And in such discussions, it is in no way out of the realm of reason to expect people to throw around goofy language. It is also not out of the realm of reason to expect that people will not freak out about it. > One thing I have learned is that bringing about drugs, insanity and > stuff like that is that it often stirrs up feelings that was not > suppossed to be stirred up. Lots of things bring up lots of feelings that aren't necessarily intended ("He mentioned a sandwich, and my mother died while eating a sandwich! That bastard!"). It is important to realize that such things aren't generally intentional. And not to get completely derailed by it. > People have bad experiences from drugs and > mental health problems etc. Do you agree to this, or am I wrong again? Yes, they do. They also have bad experiences from drinking ("Whoah. Lay off the sauce there, buddy.") and car accidents ("This idea is a car wreck") and train crashes ("You are a total train wreck"). And shooting rampages ("Why are you on such a rampage over this?"). And angry, homicidal postal workers ("Don't go all postal over this"). And domestic terrorists ("What are you, the unibomber?"). And nazis ("Don't be such a spelling nazi"). And anything else that could possibly: A) Be used as a metaphor/simile in everyday discussion. B) Harm someone. But if you avoid all of these, all discussion turns into a technical manual. And the world tends to not work like that. There are certainly lines of discussion that polite society tends to shy away from, and this is all for the best. But you can't shy away from everything that could ever possibly be found offensive by someone somewhere. -Peter

On Oct 8, 2:29 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <dac4f721-2544-4ec6-affd-dcee48082...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroup > > s.com>, as...@hotmail.com writes: > >Oh, me bad. Saying "Are you on crack?" doesn´t actually call someone a > >drug addict, it merely implies it. > > No, it doesn't. > > "Are you on crack?" implies "That idea is totally insane. I can't even > begin to understand how you could think that." > > Similarly, there are many other phrases that do not imply the literal > meaning of their words. Examples: > > - "Are you out of your tree?" does not imply that you have a tree, that > you live in a tree, and that you have now left the tree. It implies > that the speaker thinks you're nuts. However he might be implying that you are a nut farmer, as you do need trees for those. > - "Man, that tasted like shit" does not, in fact, imply that your > cooking tastes like faeces. It just wasn't very pleasant. Of course this excludes that coffee from Madagascar that is actually cured by going through the alimentary canal of a lemur, a process which removes some of the acids. It does not taste like shit, but it certainly is shit. Also THE shit if certain coffee aficionados are to be believed. Then again, drinking steamed primate droppings probably means you are on crack. > - "Look what the cat dragged in" can be uttered by people where there is > no cat. It does not imply you have a cat. It does not imply you like > cats. It does not imply you have train your cat to drag things in. > It could be uttered in front of someone who is allergic to cats > without causing them to panic. Of course if you live in India or Africa, it could be your pet lion or tiger dragging in some food....

In message <50e1d1a3-b42a-4439...@25g2000prz.googlegroups .com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >But not in any remotely realistic sense. If someone says "are you >nuts?" in response to you suggesting that you go out to a bad movie, >are you going to get upset because they are impying that you have a >mental illness? Depends. Was it M Night Unspellable's /The Happening/? Worst waste of my life EVER. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>But not in any remotely realistic sense. If someone says "are you >>nuts?" in response to you suggesting that you go out to a bad movie, >>are you going to get upset because they are impying that you have a >>mental illness? > > Depends. Was it M Night Unspellable's /The Happening/? > Worst waste of my life EVER. James, are you telling me that after Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and Lady in the Water, you *voluntarily* went to see *another* M. Night Shamalamadingdong movie? ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Oct 8, 8:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] He is obviously on crack then....

On Oct 8, 3:17 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > > >>But not in any remotely realistic sense. If someone says "are you > > >>nuts?" in response to you suggesting that you go out to a bad movie, > > >>are you going to get upset because they are impying that you have a > > >>mental illness? > > > > Depends. Was it M Night Unspellable's /The Happening/? > > > Worst waste of my life EVER. > > > James, are you telling me that after Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and > > Lady in the Water, you *voluntarily* went to see *another* M. Night > > Shamalamadingdong movie? ;) > > He is obviously on crack then.... Let's cut the euphamisms, guys. He's obviously a drug addict who steals from old women to feed his habit.

In article <f7de6dac-6c7f-44a2...@w13g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > So, by admitting that you do this alot, it should be ok? I really don > ´t see the logic in this. The point is that it is simply common, everyday conversation. It is like saying "that's crazy" or "don't be a loon". It is part of every day language. It isn't something I'd say to my boss. But it is something I'd say to my students or co-workers. > Simple question: What is funny about crack? Nothing. It is slightly inappropriate humor. Like The Soup Nazi. Or jokes about getting shanked in prison. Does Swedish (you are from Sweden, correct?) culture have no slightly inappropriate humor that is part of every day, mostly polite conversation? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 8, 2:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > James, are you telling me that after Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and > Lady in the Water, you *voluntarily* went to see *another* M. Night > Shamalamadingdong movie? ;) Don't you be naysaying Unbreakable, you crackhead. John Eno

In message <rk7Hk.3664$1Z4...@newsfe01.iad>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Depends. Was it M Night Unspellable's /The Happening/? >> Worst waste of my life EVER. > >James, are you telling me that after Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, and >Lady in the Water, you *voluntarily* went to see *another* M. Night >Shamalamadingdong movie? ;) It was free. And I liked Unbreakable, and haven't seen the other three. What can I say? I was off my face on smack at the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ass hat grammar nazi..... ;) (Just in case it might be missed;)

On Oct 9, 1:25 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <rk7Hk.3664$1Z4....@newsfe01.iad>, Kevin M. [ quoted text not captured ] No speedballs?