[LSJ] Are the rule cards legal for regular tournament play?

hi, a question that has been asked several times, but I have not yet found a real answer. So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament play? thanks!!! regards, Chris.QJ

Chris.QJ wrote: > a question that has been asked several times, but I have not yet found > a real answer. > > So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament > play? No.

LSJ wrote: > > So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament > > play? > > No. Dare I ask--why was this decision made? I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be problematic for the rules cards/useful cards to be legal in constructed play. I mean, like, you still pay for them (they are the 11th card in a normally priced 11 card booster). And they are "proxies" for common/uncommon cards that are in wide circulation. Why aren't they legal for constructed tournament play? -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament > > > play? > > > > No. > > Dare I ask--why was this decision made? And they > are "proxies" for common/uncommon cards that are in wide circulation. > > Why aren't they legal for constructed tournament play? > > -Peter 4.5. Proxy Cards The use of proxy cards is not permitted, unless a judge provides these cards. G

The proxies are not the point I think. The point is, they could have been legal cards as they have all the information needed for playing. So the point that in this set we pay a full price from a booster that only has 10 cards in it. And the rules cards would been quite useful at least to newer players, do not have enough cards from older sets to have enough .44 Magnums (where you get them? from Jyhad, V:TES, Sabbat and SW?), Computer Hackings et cetera. Seeing the official anwer was a disappointment to me also :( -Antero PS: Hey Mr. B! Yer BWBITM deck was an excellent core for my ANI/pro wall (bows).

LSJ wrote: > Chris.QJ wrote: >>So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament >>play? > > No. If they are not legal for constructed tournament play why wasn't it written on the cards, like in the Nergal deck? As it is, no beginner will realize that those cards are not legal. And even for me and other experienced local players the answer for the question would seem to be "Yes, as there is nothing on the cards that would say no."

On 10 Apr 2006 07:13:34 -0700, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >Dare I ask--why was this decision made? I can't for the life of me >figure out why it would be problematic for the rules cards/useful cards >to be legal in constructed play. I mean, like, you still pay for them >(they are the 11th card in a normally priced 11 card booster). And they >are "proxies" for common/uncommon cards that are in wide circulation. > >Why aren't they legal for constructed tournament play? thankfully I am not the only one feeling a little pissed at paying for a card per booster that I can basically throw away! not a good way to do business...... regards, Chris.QJ

"Chris.QJ" wrote > thankfully I am not the only one feeling > a little pissed at paying for > a card per booster that I can basically throw away! Please condsider recycling those rules cards. Jay

If you wrote, "Not legal for tournament play", anywhere on the rule cards, people might think that the entire expansion was illegal in tournaments. ;) At any rate, I really don't see what the big deal is for allowing the rule cards to be used in tournaments. - Ben Peal

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:27:54 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] fear not, waste management operation works quite fine in austria ;-) Chris.QJ

[ quoted text not captured ] > - Ben Peal What about a Trade-in Offer? Collect Rule cards and trade them in for... ...a T-shirt? ...free boosters? ..."regular" copies of their proxies? ...a pony?

talonz wrote: > 4.5. Proxy Cards > > The use of proxy cards is not permitted, unless a judge provides these > cards. Yes, yes, Proxy cards are illegal. More to the point, however, is why are the rules cards consider proxies? The cards that they are proxies for have little enough rules text that they could have been printed with all the necessary information and have not been considered proxies. Like, granted, I'm yet to see the rules cards. But from what I understand, they have necessary rules text printed on them. This being the case, why aren't they legal cards, rather than proxies? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The deal for newer players is that some of the rule cards are good staple cards that you need several copies of that haven't seen boosters after Sabbat (.44 Magnum, Computer Hacking). Even I, who have played the game for several years and have at least one copy of each starter White Wolf has printed, don't have enough of those two cards to build more than one solid deck using them. First printing the cards in a format that is seemingly tournament legal, although different looking than normal cards, and then saying to the players "Sorry, you can't use these cards," doesn't sound good to me. If the cards would clearly indicate that they are only rules reference cards not intended to see tournament play, I wouldn't mind that much. As it is I see no reason whatever, execept to collect more revenue, to ban the rule cards. As far as I remember they have all the reverent card text (except Elder Library that is missing it's pool cost).

Ben Peal wrote: > At any rate, I really don't see what the big deal is for > allowing the rule cards to be used in tournaments. That seems to be the general consensus--I mean, unless there is some legitimate reason (other than " 'cause we say so" :-) for not allowing the rules cards in competetive play, why is it even an issue? Maybe they don't have pictures, and they don't want to make people not be able to identify the cards by sight? (I'm assuming they don't have pictures)? Maybe the texts are sloppy (i.e. like the shortened Ambush or whatever)? In any case, it seems kinda silly to have gone through the effort to have made the rules cards into useful proxy cards, and then turn around and say "well, we went through the effort to make the rules cards actually useful, but they really aren't, as you can't use them in competetive play..." I mean, like, it is hardly a big deal, as it all likelyhood, you can swap out the rules cards from a deck you want to use in competition for the actual cards from another deck. But they whole thing seems kinda silly, and I'm yet to see a concrete reason for the decision. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > But from what I > understand, they have necessary rules text printed on them. This being > the case, why aren't they legal cards, rather than proxies? Perhaps the real question is: Why are these cards legal for limited play and not for constructed play?

In message <1144677818.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, LSJ [ quoted text not captured ] That's unhelpful, given the Preview text: For added use in draft or sealed play, each rules card also doubles as a library card as indicated on the card when turned upside down. The library cards represented on the rules cards are chosen from previous sets for their general utility (that both vampires and imbued can use). As this means that all sealed deck or draft tournaments using the rule cards in this intended, explicitly stated manner are unsanctioned. :-( I can't see anything in 4.1 of <http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php ?line=veknRules> which differentiates between the cards allowed in constructed and the cards allowed in draft - other than, obviously, having those cards available to draft with. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Maybe they don't have pictures, and they don't want to make people not > be able to identify the cards by sight? (I'm assuming they don't have > pictures)? They don't have pictures. That's actually the best argument I've seen for making them not be tournament legal. Nice job. :) I don't really see a problem with making them legal. I guess it could be confusing if someone's got one minion with a rules card .44 Magnum and another minion with a rules card Laptop Computer and you're playing at an extra big table. As long as we don't outlaw asking "Does Smudge have the laptop or the gun?" it should be okay. I guess you're actually just arguing against Madness of the Bard. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > Maybe they don't have pictures, and they don't want to make people not > > be able to identify the cards by sight? (I'm assuming they don't have > > pictures)? > > They don't have pictures. That's actually the best argument I've seen for > making them not be tournament legal. Nice job. :) Sure, but what about stuff that has had the picture change? Should only the latest picture be the authorative and usable one? I hope not. I see no reason that having a picture (or not) should impact the cards playability as long as the relevant rules text is present.

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > Maybe they don't have pictures, and they don't want to make people not > > be able to identify the cards by sight? (I'm assuming they don't have > > pictures)? > > They don't have pictures. That's actually the best argument I've seen for > making them not be tournament legal. Nice job. :) > > I don't really see a problem with making them legal. I guess it could be > confusing if someone's got one minion with a rules card .44 Magnum and > another minion with a rules card Laptop Computer and you're playing at an > extra big table. .44s and Laptops cards are commonly covered up by the minion they are played on anyway. I normally only see the card name sticking out the top and don't think I'd even see the rules text in play. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Does this means White-Wolf is selling proxies at the price of regular cards? Without giving that information to the public beforehand? [edit] sorry, on the booster display box it reads ' 10 new cards and a rules card ' printed on the back of the display.[/edit] I'm nobody on the V:TES scenery, but I'm not happy to see WW taking this kind of tricks with the players and buyers; I personaly just buyed a display and have now 36 proxies...

The Rusher wrote: > rules card ' printed on the back of the display.[/edit] > > I'm nobody on the V:TES scenery, but I'm not happy to see WW taking > this kind of tricks with the players and buyers; I personaly just buyed > a display and have now 36 proxies... Please don't call them proxies, they are just useless cards. I really hope that this won't turn up to be the introduction of a new 10-card booster strategy...

The Rusher wrote: > rules card ' printed on the back of the display.[/edit] > > I'm nobody on the V:TES scenery, but I'm not happy to see WW taking > this kind of tricks with the players and buyers; I personaly just buyed > a display and have now 36 proxies... Please don't call them proxies, they are just useless cards. I really [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Please don't call them proxies, call them useless cards... because they are useless cards. I hope that we don't see this kind of think in future sets...

Chris.QJ wrote: > thankfully I am not the only one feeling a little pissed at paying for > a card per booster that I can basically throw away! Sure but to a degree this happens a lot anyway. If you buy a box of boosters for any particular set, a lot of the commons and sometimes even vampires go in the pile of duplicates you already have. At least with this set your getting almost all new cards so the % of useful cards is higher. Obviously new players may feel differently but I'm sure most play groups chip in with commons for new players or would let people use them in casual play etc... anyway.

The Rusher wrote: > rules card ' printed on the back of the display.[/edit] > > I'm nobody on the V:TES scenery, but I'm not happy to see WW taking > this kind of tricks with the players and buyers; I personaly just buyed > a display and have now 36 proxies... Please don't call them proxies, they are just useless cards. I really [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Apart from pissing people off this is actually a very minor problem in smaller tournamnets. Give your "proxies" to the judge. Said judge then agrees that your deck may use proxies and by sheer coincidence provides you with a handy set of proxies consisting of exactly the card he/she was given a few seconds earlier. Rinse and repeat until this rule goes away. Sten During *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1144677818.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > >Chris.QJ wrote: > >> a question that has been asked several times, but I have not yet found > >> a real answer. > >> > >> So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament > >> play? > > > >No. > > That's unhelpful, given the Preview text: > > For added use in draft or sealed play, each rules card also > doubles as a library card as indicated on the card when turned > upside down. The library cards represented on the rules cards > are chosen from previous sets for their general utility (that > both vampires and imbued can use). > > As this means that all sealed deck or draft tournaments using the rule > cards in this intended, explicitly stated manner are unsanctioned. :-( It is true that the VEKN rules written before the NoR Rules cards were made didn't explicitly address them. The preview text i an official alteration to the VEKN rules regarding limited tournaments.

The Rusher wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Chris.QJ wrote: > > > a question that has been asked several times, but I have not yet found > > > a real answer. > > > > > > So please... are those rule cards legal for constructed tournament > > > play? > > > > No. > > Does this means White-Wolf is selling proxies at the price of regular > cards? No. The rules cards were "free". Just like the wrapper that the cards come in. > Without giving that information to the public beforehand? > > [edit] sorry, on the booster display box it reads ' 10 new cards and a > rules card ' printed on the back of the display.[/edit] Correct. The boosters were advertised as 10-card boosters. On the display box as well as in earlier advertising, including the web preview page. That arrangement was due to the logistics of form layout and booster-stuffing given the current state of equipment and technology available to handle a 60-card run of new cards with a 20/20/20 split efficiently. The 11th card was added to allow the packs to be used more easily in various draft events, since most draft events use boosters from a mix of expansions. The rules cards have a drastically different layout, however, and players before have voiced concern about having two (or three) different layouts (the differences before being less than the difference here). Especially without being asked about it beforehand. Or so the reports went. So here we are. The light again playing tricks on the hue of the grass on the other side. If it turns out that the vast majority of players have no problem with adding another even more drastic layout change, then there would be little reason not to extend the same favor to constructed tournaments that has been extended to limited tournaments. For my own knowledge, how did you edit a post on USENET after posting it?

[ quoted text not captured ] most games I play, the cards on a minion are often stacked up under them anyway, with only the card title showing (one guy stacks them out the bottom, but that's really annoying. i can usually read a card title from across the table. Reading the text box is another matter). So from my perspective the 'no-picture' wouldn't bother me too much. Unlike the Virtue symbols, which are as hard to read across a table as I feared they might be. Not that at this point I would know what to watch out for on an Imbued of my pred or prey, but I feel silly always asking 'does that guy with three Conviction have that symbol that means he can play Smite?' -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

LSJ wrote: > > For my own knowledge, how did you edit a post on USENET after posting > it? Sorry for the misleading writing but I'm used to post and I've used a form of writing from there, as far as I know you don't edit a post on USENET after posting it.

LSJ wrote: > No. The rules cards were "free". Just like the wrapper that the cards > come in. Well, from the outside perspective, it looks just like the 11 card boosters cost the same as previous 11 card boosters, and as such, the 11th rules card hardly seems free. It mostly seems like an 11th card. But I could be incorrect, and production costs have gone up, and the 11th card actually is included free. > Correct. The boosters were advertised as 10-card boosters. On the > display box as well as in earlier advertising, including the web > preview page. Sure. But for the same cost as 11 card boosters. At least that is what it seemed like when I bought my box. > The 11th card was added to allow the packs to be used more easily in > various draft events, since most draft events use boosters from a mix > of expansions. Which is certainly a good idea. But if the cards are useable in draft events, there isn't really a good reason to make them unuseable in constructed events. Any issues that arrise from change of layout, lack of picture, or incomplete rules text that will result from use of the proxy cards in a constructed event are just as like to be issues in draft events. > So here we are. The light again playing tricks on the hue of the grass > on the other side. As being somone who is on the record as totally in favor of the new layouts, and having no problem with different layout cards, I gotta say that one more different layout in your deck is hardly going to be a problem :-) And again, if it isn't enough of a problem to keep the cards from being used in draft events, why is it enough of a problem to keep them from being used in constructed events? > If it turns out that the vast majority of players have no problem with > adding another even more drastic layout change, then there would be > little reason not to extend the same favor to constructed tournaments > that has been extended to limited tournaments. I agree. It seems likely that for most folks, the "negative" of another kooky layout on a card is less of a negative than not being able to use the cards that (at least in their perception) they paid for in competetive play. Like, I'm not real het up about this. It is unlikely that anyone else is real het up about it. But it just seems silly to arbitrarily decide that the rules card proxies are good enough for limited/draft play but somehow not good enough for constructed. > For my own knowledge, how did you edit a post on USENET after posting > it? Googlegroups lets you delete posts for a little bit after you post them. If you can do that, it seems likely that you can probably edit them too (I have deleted posts from googlegroups in the past--during a particulalry weird attempt to get a newsreader to work one time, I sent a test post to rec.religion.scientology which was one of the only newsgroups I could read on my newsreader for reasons that aren't really worth explaining, and then when it showed up, I deleted it with google groups. It vanished, but the record that I made the post still exists, but the archive shows a blank post). -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1144757475.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > The rules cards have a drastically different layout, however, and > players before have voiced concern about having two (or three) > different layouts (the differences before being less than the > difference here). Especially without being asked about it beforehand. > Or so the reports went. ... > If it turns out that the vast majority of players have no problem with > adding another even more drastic layout change, then there would be > little reason not to extend the same favor to constructed tournaments > that has been extended to limited tournaments. Well, heck, it's one thing to say, "White Wolf voluntarily changed the layout when they didn't need to with unnecessarily annoying results. I'm against that sort of thing and I hope they don't do it again." But if I understand _this_, it's that there was a need for a rules card in an expansion and this was seen as a way for the players to have their cake (that is, rules cards that can be found in the boosters) and eat it, too (having usable cards). It's not like WW is going to start issuing all the cards in all the future sets in "rules card form", is it? I'm really glad to hear the art people have become more cautious about whether changing something would be perceived by the players as good or bad. But I don't see how allowing rules card versions of these simple cards in constructed tournaments hurts anything much. > For my own knowledge, how did you edit a post on USENET after posting > it? It is impossible to edit a post on "Usenet". A post on Usenet is literally stored on servers around the world. Even quote-canceling- unquote a Usenet post doesn't do anything except send a cancel command around the world after the post telling all the servers that _want_ to listen (some don't), to please erase (or at least stop showing) the post. Fred

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > > The 11th card was added to allow the packs to be used more easily in > > various draft events, since most draft events use boosters from a mix > > of expansions. > > Which is certainly a good idea. But if the cards are useable in draft > events, there isn't really a good reason to make them unuseable in > constructed events. Any issues that arrise from change of layout, lack > of picture, or incomplete rules text that will result from use of the > proxy cards in a constructed event are just as like to be issues in > draft events. The benefits from having an 11-card draft stock overcame the issues for limited. > And again, if it isn't enough of a problem to keep the cards from being > used in draft events, why is it enough of a problem to keep them from > being used in constructed events? Again, draft/sealed has a bigger need for same-sized stocks from boosters. > Googlegroups lets you delete posts for a little bit after you post > them. If you can do that, it seems likely that you can probably edit > them too (I have deleted posts from googlegroups in the past--during a > particulalry weird attempt to get a newsreader to work one time, I sent > a test post to rec.religion.scientology which was one of the only > newsgroups I could read on my newsreader for reasons that aren't really > worth explaining, and then when it showed up, I deleted it with google > groups. It vanished, but the record that I made the post still exists, > but the archive shows a blank post). FYI: That may delete the post from Google archives, but the post will still have gone out to the USENET at large, in general. Many people (who aren't reading on Google) will see it and will likely not see the "Cancel" request that follows.

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:2QO_f.213$Oe2.94@fed1read07... > I'm really glad to hear the art people have become more cautious about > whether changing something would be perceived by the players as good > or bad. But I don't see how allowing rules card versions of these > simple cards in constructed tournaments hurts anything much. By the way, has anyone put up a picture of a rules card face somewhere on the net? I'd like to see one of these puppies and my cards don't come 'til the end of the week. (Need sympathy here! :-) ) Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > > news:2QO_f.213$Oe2.94@fed1read07... > By the way, has anyone put up a picture of a rules card face somewhere > on the net? I'd like to see one of these puppies and my cards don't > come 'til the end of the week. (Need sympathy here! :-) ) Yes. Here: http://dnn.vtes.net/NightsofReckoning/tabid/466/Default.aspx?AlbumID=996-34 > Fred -John Flournoy

LSJ wrote: > The benefits from having an 11-card draft stock overcame the issues for > limited. Sure--having an 11 card booster for drafting from rather than a 10 card booster is handy. But again, if the cards are not disruptive enough to keep them out of limited/draft play, then they are unlikely to be disruptive enough to keep them out of constructed play. > FYI: That may delete the post from Google archives, but the post will > still have gone out to the USENET at large, in general. Many people > (who aren't reading on Google) will see it and will likely not see the > "Cancel" request that follows. Seems likely. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The benefits from having an 11-card draft stock overcame the issues for > > limited. > > Sure--having an 11 card booster for drafting from rather than a 10 card > booster is handy. But again, if the cards are not disruptive enough to > keep them out of limited/draft play, then they are unlikely to be > disruptive enough to keep them out of constructed play. Right. And yet they do look different. And players have expressed concern about such things. And the 11-card mandate doesn't come into the picture for constructed. So that leaves just the concern. Around and around we go. I'll set up a poll for this on the WW forum in a week or so (after everyone has a chance to get their hands on the rules cards and see how they play/mix in real life) to see how the 'net-capable portion of the player base feels about the issue.

LSJ wrote: > I'll set up a poll for this on the WW forum in a week or so (after > everyone has a chance to get their hands on the rules cards and see how > they play/mix in real life) to see how the 'net-capable portion of the > player base feels about the issue. Talk about responsiveness to the player base - this is awesome! Thank you, LSJ. Ira, who believes in polls

LSJ wrote: > I'll set up a poll for this on the WW forum in a week or so (after > everyone has a chance to get their hands on the rules cards and see how > they play/mix in real life) to see how the 'net-capable portion of the > player base feels about the issue. I already set a similar poll at the Path of Blood and the result after 4 hours is 7 to 1 for the allowing of the rule cards. I'm waiting eagerly for you to set an official poll at the WW site so I can say yes there also. All of you who have an account at the Path of Blood can vote at http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3555

In message <1144741062.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, tzimisce_dragon <clan_a...@yahoo.com> writes: >Please don't call them proxies, they are just useless cards. I really >hope that this won't turn up to be the introduction of a new 10-card >booster strategy... I can understand triple-posting in a very short time. Why the need for a fourth copy to be posted over an hour later? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1144774449.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >> Sure--having an 11 card booster for drafting from rather than a 10 card >> booster is handy. But again, if the cards are not disruptive enough to >> keep them out of limited/draft play, then they are unlikely to be >> disruptive enough to keep them out of constructed play. > > Right. > > And yet they do look different. > And players have expressed concern about such things. > And the 11-card mandate doesn't come into the picture for constructed. > So that leaves just the concern. > > Around and around we go. Perhaps it's that there is 'it's annoying that this difference exists', and then there is (or could be, but maybe hasn't been yet), 'it's really importantly bad that this difference exists'. I suspect that all the people who still play VTES at this date have a pretty high tolerance for 'annoying differences', since they already put up with a lot of them in order to play the game. Working in our favor, we had to start early, when "Stake" became "Wooden Stake", etc, etc, etc. :-) Josh still finds it annoying (but not cripplingly so) that, when drafting, crypt cards from pre-CE sets can't be lined up with their post-CE counterparts to scan their disciplines (and, for that matter, that disciplines & capacity were in the same place before CE but are not now) (but is resigned to the fact that this is simply a game that will never win any elegance-of-graphic-design awards)

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > The 11th card was added to allow the packs to be used more easily in > > various draft events, since most draft events use boosters from a mix > > of expansions. > > Which is certainly a good idea. But if the cards are useable in draft > events, there isn't really a good reason to make them unuseable in > constructed events. Because they look like crap, and are not immediately recognizable as their actual cardname, and thus are proxies? (and are apparently acceptable in draft due to the 11 card booster issue) But there is already a solution available. The player approaches the judge, states he has suitable proxies for some basic cards he simply doesn't have, the learned judge looks him up and down, realizes he is probably a new or recent player with a limited cardbase, and authorizes the use of said proxies. No reason to make any blanket allowance for them at all really. G

Correct, but when the card is first slapped down on the table, it is pretty much instantly recognized by what the picture is, which aids in keeping gameplay moving. A picture that also adds to the theme of the game. G

[ quoted text not captured ] Worth noting that for a Create-a-Clan last year the cards I played (and those played several other players in other previous CaC events) had entirely new pictures for every library card, making 'instant recognition by what the picture is' impossible. And nobody I played with expressed any problem distinguishing what the cards were due to my simply naming them when played (or asked), nor did it slow the game down (beyond people wanting to gawk at the artistic choices.) > G -John Flournoy

Something interesting to note: The 3 Demo Decks are free. Cards from those Demo Decks are (as far as I know) perfectly legal for tournament play. I wonder, are all the rule-card-proxy cards also available in the demo decks? If not, would it be possible to get a new wave of demo decks printed, so that all of these cards are available in a truly freely-available way to new players, so it becomes a real non-issue? Just a thought.

[ quoted text not captured ] The one thing that I noticed people are missing about these cards is there usefulness in friendly games. And Using these extra cards are useful in not having to switch out those 6 to 9 copies of your .44 Magnums... Until you do reach a tourneyment where you will be playing only one deck anyway. I will use the cards either way. Proxy or not. As they are a useful utility...Like the counter cards...Anarch/Corruption.... I do think it was a very ingenious idea that deserves credit. I liked the idea and was suprised. Especially for newer players the cards do act as reminders..... as well. But getting that thought out of the way. I really dont think these cards would be a problem in regular tourneyment play and in fact may actually become a fad/statement ...because I think the setup of the cards look cool.

> I'll set up a poll for this on the WW forum in a week or so (after > everyone has a chance to get their hands on the rules cards and see how > they play/mix in real life) to see how the 'net-capable portion of the > player base feels about the issue. That's a great decision. However, did the player base explain WHY they didn't support layout changes? This information could guide future cards with alternate layouts. I would think that the difference between this layout change and the Cam Edition changes is that this was clearly done to add functionality to cards which would otherwise be unplayable. The Cam Edition changes did not seem to serve any immediate purpose, and further, they affected more than a subset of cards. I suspect that further layout changes which affect only _some_ cards will be supported, provided the changes make sense for those cards, and I predict that further layout changes which affect all cards from that point onward will be strongly disliked. If I were lead designer, I would look into this, to understand why the players oppose one layout change but accept another (for future design reasons). -- Brian

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1145210292....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I suspect that further layout changes which affect only _some_ cards > will be supported, provided the changes make sense for those cards, and > I predict that further layout changes which affect all cards from that > point onward will be strongly disliked. I wouldn't put it exactly that way. If they changed, say, the layout of only equipment cards for some reason particular to "improving" the look and/or readability of equipment cards, I would still be annoyed - even if I agreed the modified layout was better. Such a change, however nice, would also be nasty in that it forces more mixing of layouts on players who want to use both post-layout-change new equipment and pre- change old equipment. In my book, mixing layouts always sucks worse than using either layout alone. So such a change never works (for me). In the case of the rules cards, there is no intent to force the "rules card layout" on players for all future versions of these cards. And players with even moderate collections can almost certainly avoid using them if they don't want them. The ones who are advantaged by allowing rules cards in constructed tournament play are people who don't have an alternative anyway so I don't see harm, as opposed to the current rule. > If I were lead designer, I would look into this, to understand why the > players oppose one layout change but accept another (for future design > reasons). Well, I don't think this requires a lengthy congressional investigation. But, yes, it can only be good if White Wolf's applicable personnel understand our attitudes well. Fred

LSJ wrote: > I'll set up a poll for this on the WW forum in a week or so (after > everyone has a chance to get their hands on the rules cards and see how > they play/mix in real life) to see how the 'net-capable portion of the > player base feels about the issue. The poll is up at: http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?p=677516

[ quoted text not captured ] And here it is again from my WW email (for those of you filtering on such things)

[ quoted text not captured ] I thought that was the MinWax guy posting. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

another issue is that if you made vekn legally for tournament you will become a Common (and very common because 1 of 5 can be) sudden reversal... sou you will have many and many and many sudden reversal common on NoR ... this affect too much the rarity of that card :S :S

<itan...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145576445....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Is this a joke? I'm not sure because I don't recall if :S is supposed to be some sort of emoticon? If it is, it's not a very good one. :-P

and another... if calc the frecuency of sudden in NoR ... is if you buy a booster pack ... you will get SEVEN!!!!!!! SUDDEN REVERSALS!!!! i think is that kill the card....

In message <1145576925....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Erm, so what? Lots of people have got lots and lots and lots of Sudden Reversals. Strangely, the game hasn't died in a heap. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Uh, yeah, still unclear if this is a joke or not. Sudden Reversals are already wildly common. I have 20 or so. Like, they they are easier to get now just means that people who didn't have 20 can get closer to having 20 without spending much money. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Itangast, do you think there are only 5 different rules cards? Sudden Reversal is one of 17 rules cards. .44 Magnum The Barrens Fake Out Ambush Effective Management Flak Jacket Information Highway Dodge Meat Cleaver Sudden Reversal Boxed In Elder Library Laptop Computer Misdirection Computer Hacking IR Goggles Vulnerability So you should get only 2 Sudden Reversals in a box. -- Brian