Final Nights: 11 Capacity vampires selling too high?

Is it just me, or $22.50 for Augustus Giovanni a little steep? That's what it's selling for right now on Ebay, with atleast 2 of the other 3 eleven-capactiy vampires selling for $10.50. I know they're rares, but at that price, you're well on your way to buying a new box of boosters. Is there a rarity anomaly during this print run that I don't know of, or does everyone just have a soft spot for getting all the vampires :) Rader P.s... just FYI, statistics, and for science... Out of my two booster boxes, I got 2 Augustus and 2 Esmerelda's, so luckily will be able to trade 1 each for the other 2.

>Is it just me, or $22.50 for Augustus Giovanni a little steep? >That's what it's selling for right now on Ebay, with atleast 2 of the >other 3 eleven-capactiy vampires selling for $10.50. > >I know they're rares, but at that price, you're well on your way to >buying a new box of boosters. Hey you know what capitalism says: It's worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. I definitely agree that the prices are too high (for me). In fact, I'm sure buying FN boxes, raiding all the rares, and selling them on eBay can be rather profitable. But I at least have better things to do... Anyway. The people shelling out $22.50 for Augustus are probably the same ones who were paying $50 each for Dan and Mariana... Halcyan 2

"Dustin Cote" <dusti...@home.com> wrote in message news:dj3tktotobkb3gmjk...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I“d love to take an Augustus off your hands (I“ve gotten 3 Sutekhs out of 20 boosters so far)

"Dustin Cote" <dusti...@home.com> wrote in message news:dj3tktotobkb3gmjk...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I remember that we had a discussion on how terrible the R1 is. I was just wondering if, now that final nights has been out for a month plus, if local playgroups are still having trouble with them? I had 4 boxes and got 15 of the R1 cards. More then plenty for what I need. I just can't see myself with a stockpile of abominations? Any of the ones that I do want, I have been able to find someone to trade. So it doesn't seem to have ruined the game to me. Anyone else? Aaron

I've got an Augustus.. I'd love an Esmerelda (my wife plays Ravnos) Matt

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7cC37.41659$Ro2.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Everyone here pretty much has what they need, or has been able to trade pretty easily for it. The R1's haven't been a problem in the slightest. In fact, some of the most sought after cards haven't even been the R1's. The Sargon Fragment, Sniper Rifle, and Treasured Samadji have all been really hot. -Grant Garvin Prince of Seekonk, Massachusetts Visit V:EKN Seekonk! http://www.naisp.net/users/nepenthe/

>I remember that we had a discussion on how terrible the R1 is. I was just >wondering if, now that final nights has been out for a month plus, if local >playgroups are still having trouble with them? >I had 4 boxes and got 15 of the R1 cards. More then plenty for what I need. >I just can't see myself with a stockpile of abominations? >Any of the ones that I do want, I have been able to find someone to trade. >So it doesn't seem to have ruined the game to me. Anyone else? Still missing one of the vampires (assuming the other card ever arrives in the mail), one that many of the locals also want. Couldn't find anyone on SClub that made sense to trade with as only two people had the card listed.

[snip multiple people missing cards] Ditto here. I'm still looking for a Sutekh, and have a You're Sugary or an Abomination in trade. Also, Gomi and Wes, let me know if you're still interested in trading... Xian

cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote in message > > Still missing one of the vampires (assuming the other card ever arrives in the > mail), one that many of the locals also want. Couldn't find anyone on SClub > that made sense to trade with as only two people had the card listed. Which one was it? I have an extra Agustus I would like to trade for an Ur-Shugi. If any one has him available, please let me know... Pc.

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010713150034...@ng-ft1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] So I will take it that the whole R1 scare was blown out of proportions. As it seems here that everyone is saying the same thing: "well, I just need this *one* card..." And if there was a problem I would have expected to hear: "noone has ever seen augustus, help!" Aaron

In message <iQN37.45126$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >And if there was a problem I would have expected to hear: "noone has ever >seen augustus, help!" He wasn't actually printed, you know. It's a mass-delusion caused by a Ravnos at White Wolf that makes you think he was. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:XYe1bs8V...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <iQN37.45126$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The > Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes > >And if there was a problem I would have expected to hear: "noone has ever > >seen augustus, help!" > > He wasn't actually printed, you know. It's a mass-delusion caused by a > Ravnos at White Wolf that makes you think he was. It's common knowledge that everyone at white wolf are really assamites. The company is really stationed in Saudi Arabia. Why else would they put such a big emphasis on the middle east?

In message <KjO37.45677$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >> He wasn't actually printed, you know. It's a mass-delusion caused by a >> Ravnos at White Wolf that makes you think he was. > >It's common knowledge that everyone at white wolf are really assamites. Oh yes. But a freelancer dropping by the office, maybe. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Which one was it? I have an extra Agustus I would like to trade for an >Ur-Shugi. >If any one has him available, please let me know... Ezmerelda. /So I will take it that the whole R1 scare was blown out of proportions. As it seems here that everyone is saying the same thing: "well, I just need this *one* card..." (Aaron) Well, except I could use 4-6 copies of this one card, another 1-2 Sutekhs, another 1-2 Ur-Shulgis, and am reluctant to trade an Augustus. Vampires, especially those with unique features, are useful in large numbers. The R1 problem could have been so much worse - see Wheel of Time (okay, WoT is *much* worse in this regard). Could also have been better by not making the vampires so hard to get. And, why bother having R1s at all (ignoring that it is a sales gimmick)? Could just cut some of the weaker cards from a set to get it down to 150.

In message <20010714122823...@ng-cf1.aol.com>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes >And, why bother having R1s at all (ignoring that it >is a sales gimmick)? Bing bing bing bing bing. White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes > >And, why bother having R1s at all (ignoring that it > >is a sales gimmick)? > > Bing bing bing bing bing. > > White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. Pah. If they were not out to fleece us, they would not be in the Deckmaster (TM, R, whatever) business, and they would just sell any card on demand by title (at booster price/booster size, or perhaps more, depending on demand for individual title), or at the very least in complete sets (at [set size/booster size]*booster price). Deckmaster is all about selling you cards that you don't need and don't want. I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival game, but though I keep paying to play, at least I understand the implication of the carnie's refusal to let me just buy the stuffed animal. Of course we're being fleeced. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. > > Pah. If they were not out to fleece us, ... > they would just sell any card on demand by title (at booster > price/booster size, or perhaps more, depending on demand > for individual title), or at the very least in complete sets > (at [set size/booster size]*booster price). ... > Of course we're being fleeced. We are being "fleeced" if that's how you want to define it. The question isn't how they're making money, it's just the price they want to set on the product. In the world of randomly packed boosters with a rarity-level curve, the "price" is set by the degree of rarity that the rarest cards have in relation to the most common cards. Along with, of course, the traditional pricing question of how much they charge for a pack of how many cards. I believe, in this case, that it was not intentional on White Wolf's part to create super-expensive super-rare cards. And it's not yet clear that that's what will happen in the long run WRT to the R1s in Final Nights. (I have my opinion about it but I'm just guessing based on past experience which may or may not prove to be valid.) But some of the comments that Scott made about rare cards leads me to suspect some naivety on WW's part about what kinds of rarity formats will lead to what results. One problem with the CCG industry is that all the important decisions often get made by people who don't necessarily know what it feels like to collect, trade, and buy for real life card collections. While we're on the subject, by the way, I have the same opinion about the single new vampire in each starter, precon deck printed by Final Nights. Is it just me or is anyone else frustrated about this? Without this single new vampire, the only reason a person who had an adequate (what he felt was adequate) collection of older cards now has this one single card that he wands from the starter decks. This, IMO, was the absolute *WORST* thing they could have done. Had they peppered the whole starter deck with new stuff, then we'd have to buy the starter decks to get the new stuff but at least we'd be getting lots of new stuff. As it is, if we want the new vampire, we have have to buy the starter deck to get it, one per whole deck, and the rest of the stuff doesn't add anything to our collections. Not entirely, of course - some reprints will likely add to most everyone's collections. You get Dreams with the Giovanni deck, lots of rare Settite stuff with the Settite deck, and so forth. But you know what I mean. It's frustrating that they pledged to put only reprints in the starter deck and then couldn't resist sticking *one* new vampire, and thus wound up falling through the cracks and not doing either of the two more sensible extremes. Arg! Fred

>>And, why bother having R1s at all (ignoring that it >>is a sales gimmick)? > >Bing bing bing bing bing. > >White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. I've been through this with another company. Sure, at the high end, you encourage the Mr. Suitcases to get a significant number of additional cards. OTOH, there's tremendous competition both within the CCG market and with other forms of entertainment. You discourage the newbie or the casual player who feels like the game is only playable by the rich. While I don't doubt the short term gains of gimmicks (including rarity ones, which many companies have indulged in), it seems to me that the long term business plan should be to broaden the player base - quantity over quality. The real killing (that is, making a sustainable profit in the CCG industry) comes with a large customer base. Some games can achieve this just by being faddish (Pokemon) or being first (Magic), but most games have to work to hold or build their popularity. I play one game where R1s are necessary to be competitive. They've garnered tremendous criticism. But, they haven't seemed to turn off a significant portion of the player base ... yet. I have a feeling that they will contribute to shortening the lifespan of the game. But, when the game dies, there will likely be so many various reasons that you couldn't point to ultrarares as the cause. So, companies will continue with the gimmicks, and worthwhile games will continue to get underplayed. Still, I know insiders who disagree. They believe that screwing the customer does pay off and what really matters is having a good hook (often a great license). I can somewhat forgive the view as nonWotC CCG companies do have to worry about the short term.

In message <20010714173345...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes >I play one game where R1s are necessary to be competitive. They've garnered >tremendous criticism. I recall one spectacularly entertaining situation at GenCon several years ago, in Britain. The actor who played Mr Bronson in Grange Hill (and lots of sci-fi stuff) was there for his first time.[0] He wanted to find out a bit about all the different games that were going on, including the CCGs which were starting to really, *really* kick in at GenCon that year (this was about '97). So, he was being taught Star Trek by some Decipher reps. How they managed to go for a small rant about Magic's rare cards and second-hand card market without laughing I'll never know. [0] He loved it and has come back and dragged other people back since. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:36:02 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes >> >And, why bother having R1s at all (ignoring that it >> >is a sales gimmick)? >> >> Bing bing bing bing bing. >> >> White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. > >Pah. If they were not out to fleece us, they would not be >in the Deckmaster (TM, R, whatever) business, and they >would just sell any card on demand by title (at booster >price/booster size, or perhaps more, depending on demand >for individual title), or at the very least in complete sets >(at [set size/booster size]*booster price). Deckmaster is all >about selling you cards that you don't need and don't want. The above business model you describe results in one thing: A FAILED BUSINESS. It will not generate enough profit to be self-supporting, which is one very good reason that CCGs do not operate that way. CCG companies cannot print-on-demand; they MUST make one huge print run and then sell it. To support your business model would require either that the company be able to predict accurately which cards would be in high demand, or print FAR MORE cards than they could ever hope to sell. Both expectations are unrealistic; the first is obvious, and the second cuts into the profit margins sufficiently that you don't make any money off it. No sensible company will embark on any venture that is based on a losing-profit model, unless (see "Microsoft") they make FAR more than enough money from the rest of their business to be able to afford it. See also "dot.bombs" such as Webvan. >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? Not to mention that selling sets is less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of Nightmares will you get in the process... and how do you get rid of the 5-7 you don't need? Yes, the collectors do get the short end of the stick. But they do in any form - look at Beanie Babies. Collectors buy something that has no significant use, in hopes that it will be worth more to someone else later than they originally paid for it. It's their gamble, and they know it coming in. Nobody's getting fleeced THERE. >game, but though I keep paying to play, at least I understand >the implication of the carnie's refusal to let me just buy the >stuffed animal. > >Of course we're being fleeced. What a foolish statement. If we (the PLAYERS) were being fleeced, then the 'best' cards would have filled up ALL the rare slots, instead of the corner-case stuff like Week of Nightmares. Every single card that the V:TES community has looked at and gone "oh, COOL!" (say, Summon Soul) would have been rare, driving the value of cards up and forcing people to buy huge numbers of boxes in order to be competitive. Oh, and I can ASSURE you that the R1 cards would all have been ultra-mega game-breaking powerful, too, to maximize the demand from munchkins. The 11-cap Independents would have been vastly more powerful than Inner Circle members, to make you chase after them even more. No rares would have been in the pre-cons, and no reprints, EVER, of any card that wasn't a common or vampire. THAT's what being fleeced looks like. Instead, White Wolf is simply attempting to make a decent profit, so that they can CONTINUE to make a profit in the future. And it's pretty obvious, frankly, especially when you compare Sabbat War and Final Nights to, say, a certain Wizards game. -- Derek "be dirty. that will wake me up." -- name withheld to protect the guilty

fre...@netcom.com wrote: >While we're on the subject, by the way, I have the same opinion about >the single new vampire in each starter, precon deck printed by Final >Nights. Is it just me or is anyone else frustrated about this? Without There were two new "precon-only" vampires in each precon starter. Although I've heard that some people would actually prefer only 1 new vampire per starter. >this single new vampire, the only reason a person who had an adequate (what >he felt was adequate) collection of older cards now has this one single >card that he wands from the starter decks. This, IMO, was the absolute >*WORST* thing they could have done. Had they peppered the whole starter >deck with new stuff, then we'd have to buy the starter decks to get the new >stuff but at least we'd be getting lots of new stuff. As it is, if we >want the new vampire, we have have to buy the starter deck to get it, >one per whole deck, and the rest of the stuff doesn't add anything to >our collections. Not entirely, of course - some reprints will likely Each precon contained other new cards as well, new cards that were also found in the booster assortment. Depending on what you mean by "pepper", this may fit. At any rate, the new cards would certainly add something to your collection (in the usage above). >add to most everyone's collections. You get Dreams with the Giovanni >deck, lots of rare Settite stuff with the Settite deck, and so forth. >But you know what I mean. It's frustrating that they pledged to put >only reprints in the starter deck and then couldn't resist sticking *one* >new vampire, and thus wound up falling through the cracks and not doing >either of the two more sensible extremes. Arg! I think you've misremembered some WW statement vis-a-vis the "pledge" you have in mind. We always stated that, like Sabbat War, Final Nights would have 2 new precon-only vampires in each pre-con. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

In message <3B51...@MailAndNews.com>, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> writes >>add to most everyone's collections. You get Dreams with the Giovanni >>deck, lots of rare Settite stuff with the Settite deck, and so forth. >>But you know what I mean. It's frustrating that they pledged to put >>only reprints in the starter deck and then couldn't resist sticking *one* >>new vampire, and thus wound up falling through the cracks and not doing >>either of the two more sensible extremes. Arg! > >I think you've misremembered some WW statement vis-a-vis the "pledge" >you have in mind. We always stated that, like Sabbat War, Final Nights >would have 2 new precon-only vampires in each pre-con. I believe he's remembering: "The reprints will *only* appear in the starters" (paraphrase) but remembering it as: "Only reprints will appear in the starters" [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm > >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival > > Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even > bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth > anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand > for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? Not to mention that selling sets is > less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you > want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of > Nightmares will you get in the process... and how do you get rid of > the 5-7 you don't need? How many canopic jars do we need, per week of nightmares. Actually, I will give white wolf some credit. They have taken some of the paper out of booster packs. The super fat, more expensive sabbat packs suck. Actually, as a collector first I prefer not to have to lug tons of paper around my house. And I like that the packs now contain less common cards. Good for everyone. I would still like them to get slightly smaller, or have extra uncommons/rares(YES, you can have more then 1 rare in a pack) It just seems that, printing paper that people aren't buying isn't good business either. If folks are only buying your packs for the rares and tossing everything else out...then if you stop making so many commons no one will stop buying your cards, they will just save trees! =) Hmm..then you can save money printing cards. Better business model. As with all things, people are reluctant to change. Remember that Dark Sovereigns did not include ANY rare cards. The most fun set to date.(no arguing over how many cards you need, just to play) See the card limit argument that seems to pop up in just about every thread. If people had never played that way they wouldn't be so stuck in their old ways. If cards had never been "rare" but there were only commons and uncommons...well then they'd only be uncommon and rare, but it's all relative. Call them what you want but printing tons of stuff wins out for no one. Players or collectors...or white wolf. Making stuff people want to buy is the best business model of all! Aaron

In message <TJ647.48339$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >As with all things, people are reluctant to change. Remember that Dark >Sovereigns did not include ANY rare cards. In the context of a comparison with Final Nights, the difference is academic. In Final Nights we have three sheets - common, uncommon and rare. It so happens that all the uncommons were vampire. In Dark Sovereigns, we have three sheets - common, vampire and uncommon. Difference == minimal. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:54:59 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you >> want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of >> Nightmares will you get in the process... and how do you get rid of >> the 5-7 you don't need? > >How many canopic jars do we need, per week of nightmares. >Actually, I will give white wolf some credit. They have taken some of the >paper out of booster packs. >The super fat, more expensive sabbat packs suck. Actually, as a collector >first I prefer not to have to lug tons of paper around my house. And I like >that the packs now contain less common cards. Good for everyone. I would >still like them to get slightly smaller, or have extra uncommons/rares(YES, >you can have more then 1 rare in a pack) > >It just seems that, printing paper that people aren't buying isn't good >business either. If folks are only buying your packs for the rares and >tossing everything else out...then if you stop making so many commons no one >will stop buying your cards, they will just save trees! =) Hmm..then you >can save money printing cards. Better business model. Except that V:TES is a game first, and a collectible item second. The tons-of-useful-commons are one thing that keeps bringing in new players; experienced players buy a load of cards, trim out their commons they don't need, and give/trade them away to others (mostly give, really). And the fact that the game is playable at high levels with a deck composed of mostly commons is ALSO something that will drag new players' interest; the fact that you don't have to go rare-chasing to compete. I know that setting aside all my personal biases against the game, I will NEVER play Magic because I don't even want to face up to the amount of cards I'd need to purchase to just make -one- deck, not to mention the power-rares I'd need to scrounge for. With V:TES, you grab a pre-con, a pile of boosters, mix well, and you're ready to go with something that's not going to win any tournaments, but also won't be ousted in 5 turns either. >As with all things, people are reluctant to change. Remember that Dark >Sovereigns did not include ANY rare cards. The most fun set to date.(no *boggle* most players I know look at Dark Sovereigns and shake their heads at the amount of useless paper that came out of it. I know that two boxes gives you MORE than enough cards in one aspect, and nowhere near enough in another, but it's just not worth it to chase down the individual cards that were called "uncommon" but were actually rare. (cf. Lyndhurst Estate, a convenient tool for title-weak clans, and I have 1 of them after 2 boxes of DS and a small pile of prize-support. I'm NOT buying any more DS, however; I have more than enough of the rest, and I'll trade or just deal with it.) This seems to be an example of how to print cards POORLY to me, as opposed to "good"? >arguing over how many cards you need, just to play) See the card limit >argument that seems to pop up in just about every thread. If people had >never played that way they wouldn't be so stuck in their old ways. If cards >had never been "rare" but there were only commons and uncommons...well then >they'd only be uncommon and rare, but it's all relative. Call them what you >want but printing tons of stuff wins out for no one. Players or >collectors...or white wolf. Making stuff people want to buy is the best >business model of all! I agree. Which is why you can't just sell sets-on-demand, or cards-on-demand; to do that, you have to print tons of stuff that all sits around while your players decide what's in demand and what's not, and then you eat a LOT of paper for what's not. [ quoted text not captured ]

What I stated earlier was that Constructed Starters should only contain 1 new Vampire that isn't available in booster packs. And in the case of Final Nights, should have been the clan heads (like Ur-Shulgi) and give them a Path card while you're at it. Of course, that's all moot now.. Bernie

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dqv1ltgn19tdf37vr...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Please decide. Is it Collectible, or a game. Games should be easy to get ahold of and play. Collectability involves having something you want to collect. If you are making it for collectors, well noone wants to 'collect' something you can just out right buy.(that is why collectors tend to be mad when you do stuff like, say reprint one of the most tough to find cards in a pre-constructed -guarenteed to be there- starter deck) Players tend to be mad when you can't get ahold of a card for a deck, and could care less about collectors or how much money someone wants to make. (I think we are agreed on this point) > tons-of-useful-commons are one thing that keeps bringing in new > players; experienced players buy a load of cards, trim out their > commons they don't need, and give/trade them away to others (mostly "Come play VTES. You don't need to buy cards. We depend on rich folk giving them away!" Not good for business either. think about it. > give, really). And the fact that the game is playable at high levels > with a deck composed of mostly commons is ALSO something that will > drag new players' interest; the fact that you don't have to go > rare-chasing to compete. I know that setting aside all my personal > biases against the game, I will NEVER play Magic because I don't even > want to face up to the amount of cards I'd need to purchase to just > make -one- deck, not to mention the power-rares I'd need to scrounge > for. With V:TES, you grab a pre-con, a pile of boosters, mix well, > and you're ready to go with something that's not going to win any > tournaments, but also won't be ousted in 5 turns either. > > >As with all things, people are reluctant to change. Remember that Dark > >Sovereigns did not include ANY rare cards. The most fun set to date.(no > > *boggle* most players I know look at Dark Sovereigns and shake their > heads at the amount of useless paper that came out of it. I know that Maybe you are looking at a differnent set. I am looking at the set that includes: Aire of Elation Banishment Burning Wrath Closed Session Corpse Minion Heidelberg Castle, Germany Pentex Subversion Etc. Tons of good cards. And all I know is, having bought roughly the same amount of each set, if I wanted to play a deck using any of the cards from DS, I would have no trouble(17 of my ultra favorite card Banishment) Versus the same number of final nights cards where I would probably still be unable(only 3 of the extra cool Wave of Lethargy) My point? No rares. Still had great cards but they were easier to get ahold of. And there were no grand canyons between relative amounts of cards(3 rare wave of lethargy to 23 common canopic jars VS 10 uncommon pentex subversions to 14 common Precognizant Mobility) > two boxes gives you MORE than enough cards in one aspect, and nowhere > near enough in another, but it's just not worth it to chase down the > individual cards that were called "uncommon" but were actually rare. > (cf. Lyndhurst Estate, a convenient tool for title-weak clans, and I > have 1 of them after 2 boxes of DS and a small pile of prize-support. (FYI: Lyndhurst Estate, New York is from sabbat...like I said I have no idea what happened there..rarity and distribution nightmare) > I'm NOT buying any more DS, however; I have more than enough of the > rest, and I'll trade or just deal with it.) This seems to be an > example of how to print cards POORLY to me, as opposed to "good"? Right, poorly done. You only bought a reasonable amount and you have all the cards you need....wouldn't want to ever have that happen again! > >arguing over how many cards you need, just to play) See the card limit > >argument that seems to pop up in just about every thread. If people had > >never played that way they wouldn't be so stuck in their old ways. If cards > >had never been "rare" but there were only commons and uncommons...well then > >they'd only be uncommon and rare, but it's all relative. Call them what you > >want but printing tons of stuff wins out for no one. Players or > >collectors...or white wolf. Making stuff people want to buy is the best > >business model of all! > > I agree. Which is why you can't just sell sets-on-demand, or > cards-on-demand; to do that, you have to print tons of stuff that all > sits around while your players decide what's in demand and what's not, > and then you eat a LOT of paper for what's not. You are right. Cards on demand or sets like that are, by in large, impractical.(not impossible has been done) Either way they seem like a silly idea for Jyhad. But you can still be collectable/random in other ways then filling up my living room with 41 of the only usable once per game Ancient Influence vote. I'd like themed boosters myself. Like you said: "how many sets do you want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of Nightmares will you get in the process" But if you are getting 10 disarms...wouldn't it be nice to also get 10 immortal grapples, and 10 pushing the limits, and 10...(insert several random cards that will back disarms up) No one seems to have trouble with the pre-constructed starters. You need direct interventions, you buy !brujah. You want terror frenzy buy ravnos(that just made my day getting those! :) I know I know....if you sold people too much of what the want they wouldn't be forced to buy all the stuff they don't need/won't use. Then we won't have any VTES at all. But then I would rather pay more, save white wolf printing cards that will never be used, and just get a little more of what I want.(access to any card necessary to play a given strategy/deck) Aaron

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm > > >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival > > > > Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even > > bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth > > anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand > > for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? Not to mention that selling sets is > > less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you > > want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of > > Nightmares will you get in the process... and how do you get rid of > > the 5-7 you don't need? > > How many canopic jars do we need, per week of nightmares. > Actually, I will give white wolf some credit. They have taken some of the > paper out of booster packs. > The super fat, more expensive sabbat packs suck. Actually, as a collector > first I prefer not to have to lug tons of paper around my house. And I like > that the packs now contain less common cards. Good for everyone. Then you should prefer Sabbat. Sabbat packs have 2 rares per 16 common cards: an 8/1 ratio of the rarest to the most common card. Sabbat Wars, the ratio is 14/1, doubling the number of common slots since the most common card is a C2 compared to an R1. The curve in Final Nights is actually considerably steeper. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > There were two new "precon-only" vampires in each precon starter. > Although I've heard that some people would actually prefer only 1 new > vampire per starter. ... > Each precon contained other new cards as well, new cards that were also > found in the booster assortment. Depending on what you mean by "pepper", > this may fit. At any rate, the new cards would certainly add something to > your collection (in the usage above). My apologies. I looked at the precons when they just came out and somehow got the idea it was only 1 new vampires. And I guess I'd feel better about the new cards in the starters if there were rares there. I didn't notice any rares or uncommons but I haven't sat down and analyzed it out to see if the new cards are likely to be much of a draw. My impression from my cursory look was that there were very few of them and almost all of them were commons. But yes, correction noted. There's a difference between a few new cards and no new cards at all. I guess I was more thinking in terms of, if White Wolf is going to print things you can't get in the boosters, they should print a lot of things you can't get in the boosters. > I think you've misremembered some WW statement vis-a-vis the "pledge" > you have in mind. We always stated that, like Sabbat War, Final Nights > would have 2 new precon-only vampires in each pre-con. You're right. I absolutely didn't remember that stated at all. I thought I remembered a distinct pledge *not* to put anything in the precons that you couldn't get in a booster except reprints. I definitely misunderstood something. Fred

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > >> White Wolf are not out to fleece us, but they do want to make money. > > > >Pah. If they were not out to fleece us, they would not be > >in the Deckmaster (TM, R, whatever) business, and they > >would just sell any card on demand by title (at booster > >price/booster size, or perhaps more, depending on demand > >for individual title), or at the very least in complete sets > >(at [set size/booster size]*booster price). Deckmaster is all > >about selling you cards that you don't need and don't want. > > The above business model you describe results in one thing: A FAILED > BUSINESS. Nope, plenty of gaming companies do quite well by including all the game pieces at once when the game is purchased. Some of these gaming companies produce game expansions, and include all the play pieces for the expansions as well. Oh dear, we don't have enough hotels, looks like we'll have to buy another Monopoly booster box. I think not. > It will not generate enough profit to be self-supporting, > which is one very good reason that CCGs do not operate that way. CCG > companies cannot print-on-demand; they MUST make one huge print run > and then sell it. Didn't you hear? The lawyers (I presume, it always seems to be the lawyers) behind Deckmaster (WotC) decided they had to cease calling their product a collectible card game some time after they began re-printing cards. You will not find a Deckmaster game claiming to be a collectible card game, all of them are now "Trading" or "Tradable" card games. The cards are not claimed to be collectible, and no one (especially the Deckmaster companies) claims that the cards have any inherent value as collector's pieces. What is Jyhad? Page 6, Jyhad rule book: "Jyhad is a collectable trading card game..." Page 3, V:TES rule book: "V:TES is a trading card game..." and ever since As for your claim, it looks like a flat assertion from here, so I'll leave it alone. > To support your business model would require either > that the company be able to predict accurately which cards would be in > high demand, or print FAR MORE cards than they could ever hope to > sell. This may be true for individual cards, but definitely not for sets. > No sensible company will embark on any venture that is based on a > losing-profit model, unless (see "Microsoft") they make FAR more than > enough money from the rest of their business to be able to afford it. > See also "dot.bombs" such as Webvan. Well, White Wolf embraced a bomb known as V:tES. The number of bombs in Trading Card Games is probably as high or higher than dot.com flameouts, and with much smaller investments. Standard game production is a more successful profit model than the Trading Card industry, as far as I've seen. After all, Hasbro (standard game company) bought Wizards (most successful Trading Card company of all time). > >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm > >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival > > Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even > bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth > anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand > for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? See above. If your argument is that sets cannot be sold because then the collectors will not be properly fleeced, you've given the argument away. If you argue that scarcity must be preserved to satisfy the secondary market, you've given the argument away. I'm mildly amused that you think this is even a debatable point. By the way, check out the current market price of the M:tG collectors set, and you aren't even allowed to play with those. That shows the falsity of your collectors won't bother to buy sets assertion. > Not to mention that selling sets is > less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you > want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? Oh, oh, I know this one. Ten? > And how many Weeks of Nightmares will you get in the process... Hey, I know this one too. Ten? > and how do you get rid of the 5-7 you don't need? Well, it's a Trading Card Game... And what a bizarre point of view, especially when you consider how many cards you'll need to buy to get anywhere near the neighborhood of 10 Disarms. I say neighborhood since I'm allowing that you'll be able to trade for some of them (though I've had little luck on that particular card). Otherwise, you can still buy less than 10 sets and trade for the Disarms with the extra [insert card that doesn't suit you]. > >game, but though I keep paying to play, at least I understand > >the implication of the carnie's refusal to let me just buy the > >stuffed animal. > > > >Of course we're being fleeced. > > What a foolish statement. If we (the PLAYERS) were being fleeced, > then the 'best' cards would have filled up ALL the rare slots, instead > of the corner-case stuff like Week of Nightmares. What a foolish statement. All that is required for the fleecing is that many uncommon and rare cards be sought at an equal or higher rate as the common or uncommon (respectively) cards. This phenomenon is enough to cause those seeking such cards to buy more of the incidental cards than they need or want (for me, even the commons I use regularly choke my collection box, such as Deflection and Wake). From another message in this thread, you seem to agree, mentioning that you give many such cards away (meaning you had to buy something you didn't need and didn't want, and gave it away). So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on your person to have robbed you? Must the carnival game be totally impossible to win before it is considered unfair? I think not. > Every single card > that the V:TES community has looked at and gone "oh, COOL!" (say, > Summon Soul) would have been rare, driving the value of cards up and > forcing people to buy huge numbers of boxes in order to be > competitive. Oh, and I can ASSURE you that the R1 cards would all > have been ultra-mega game-breaking powerful, too, to maximize the > demand from munchkins. The 11-cap Independents would have been vastly > more powerful than Inner Circle members, to make you chase after them > even more. No rares would have been in the pre-cons, and no reprints, > EVER, of any card that wasn't a common or vampire. No, what you're describing is a (as you like to put it) "corner case" example of fleecing, where WW would attempt to maximize the number of packs the core competing community would have to buy to get the required tournament cards. Even your example might not maximize WW's profits, as it would turn off the casual player who found that he could not play with the chaff he received from a reasonable buy-in ($30 for most table-top games, but you'd be hard pressed to put together a good deck from packs at that level, maybe with the help of a starter, if you knew going in what you wanted to play). Your situation above might even turn off the serious but non-tournament player, who finds that he can't get the cards he's read about without shelling out a ridiculous (ok, more ridiculous) amount of money. Your argument of "it could be worse" to counter the idea that it is bad is sophomoric, particularly since I have already allowed that it could be worse (WotC). > THAT's what being fleeced looks like. Instead, White Wolf is simply > attempting to make a decent profit, so that they can CONTINUE to make > a profit in the future. And it's pretty obvious, frankly, especially > when you compare Sabbat War and Final Nights to, say, a certain > Wizards game. Your position seems to rely on the presumption that since we could be fleeced worse, we are not being fleeced. I provided my opinion of that in the arguments above. I've already allowed that WotC is worse, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in that vein. If I have a chance to win the stuffed animal if I play enough times, that doesn't make the carnival game fair, regardless of whether the carnival's profits hinge on my doing so. - Jason Bell

In message <c5c47.84389$ih.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> The above business model you describe results in one thing: A FAILED >> BUSINESS. > >Nope, plenty of gaming companies do quite well by including all >the game pieces at once when the game is purchased. So you're going to sell 90 of each card to every player in a "starter"? What works for Monopoly, Clue, The Great Dalmuti or whatever isn't quite the same as here, given the sheer diversity. Monopoly requires thirty or so cards, a board and some distinct counters. You can even do the money with pen and paper. This isn't true of a card game like Magic, V:TES or whatever, unless you go for the trick of playing with photocopies - which some people enjoy doing in friendly play in order to try out a new deck idea. >Some of these gaming companies produce game expansions, and >include all the play pieces for the expansions as well. >Oh dear, we don't have enough hotels, looks like we'll have to >buy another Monopoly booster box. I think not. You are constructing a very, very, very flimsy straw-man and re-inforcing it with kindling. >> It will not generate enough profit to be self-supporting, >> which is one very good reason that CCGs do not operate that way. CCG >> companies cannot print-on-demand; they MUST make one huge print run >> and then sell it. <Snip - technicalities of trading card game> I think you'll find some elements of patent law got inserted here, too. Whilst I understand the basics of British and European patent law, American patent law is just plain screwy, from where I stand. >As for your claim, it looks like a flat assertion from here, >so I'll leave it alone. Not true. The cost of printing a card game is, comparatively, huge. The cost of paper/stock is high. (Remember, the cost of paper around the world has gone up hugely over the last ten years.) The cost of printing them is similarly high. The only reasonable way you can get this cost down, for most companies, is to print in huge bulk, doing as much of the print-run in one go as possible. If you look around at the vast majority of card-games on the market, you'll see this is pretty much true. >> To support your business model would require either >> that the company be able to predict accurately which cards would be in >> high demand, or print FAR MORE cards than they could ever hope to >> sell. > >This may be true for individual cards, but definitely not for sets. Sets, being comprised of individual cards, inherit some of the truth value. If you cannot predict, accurately, what it will require for individual cards it makes it tricky, but not impossible, to predict for a whole set. >> No sensible company will embark on any venture that is based on a >> losing-profit model, unless (see "Microsoft") they make FAR more than >> enough money from the rest of their business to be able to afford it. >> See also "dot.bombs" such as Webvan. > >Well, White Wolf embraced a bomb known as V:tES. You have mis-understood the concept of something going titsup.com dot.bombs are companies which inhale money with no business model. "Hey guys, I'll put this up on the web.... and we'll make a penny a click from advertising, never mind that it'll cost two cents a click to run. It'll be cool and everyone will love it so of course they'll give us lots of money!" The production and sale of goods for a profit margin is a viable business model. Jyhad has a proven track record in that even Sabbat broke even, despite the best efforts of incompetence from Someone (tm) at Wizards which fucked up the finance side. (Ryan S. Dancey confirmed that Sabbat broke even. When it was pointed out that we had, effectively, sold out two print runs, he was unable to satisfactorily explain why a sell-out should result in breaking even only, IMHO.) This is not a dot.bomb. This might be a somewhat risky proposition - given that White Wolf have a "variable" track record with card games. (Rage was fun, if broken, Changeling was Just Plain Bad (tm).) However, it has a proven business model which can work. Risk can be minimised, even if not eliminated, by doing many of the things White Wolf did. They chose Sabbat for their first expansion because it was easiest to market, thus providing a better guarantee of good sales. They produced a set which carried many hard to obtain cards (those in Sabbat, primarily) due to sell-outs of those sets. They got players involved at every level e.g. LSJ as lead designer and rules authority, players local to White Wolf to help them get up to speed with the game mechanics, talking to people on newsgroups letting us know what was happening *in public*. They created playable starters, thus making it easier to get players into the game - "Hi, just buy this starter. It's not the best deck in the world but you won't die horribly and you don't have to go out and buy 5 starters and 76 boosters before you get enough cards to play a Brujah deck." A viable business model with minimised, even if not minimal, risk does not equate to a dot bomb. That this then led to a sell-out of the first print run of Sabbat War suggests that something went well. That they went on from there to produce a second print run, Final Nights and are still working on Bloodlines suggests that something went well, especially given that White Wolf are a company with a proven track record of sensibleness. It has clearly been a very hot day. Your straw-man is starting to crisp up. >The number >of bombs in Trading Card Games is probably as high or higher >than dot.com flameouts, and with much smaller investments. >Standard game production is a more successful profit model than >the Trading Card industry, as far as I've seen. After all, Hasbro >(standard game company) bought Wizards (most successful >Trading Card company of all time). The card game business model is a perfectly viable one - Magic has shown us this, Pokémon has shown us this, leaving V:TES aside. However, you have to a product that will sell. With Pokémon, this was created with lots of mass media hype and such like so that the game would be popular *regardless* of its playability. (Its mechanics are actually kinda cute, in many ways, but a number of the special abilities are way, way too random.) With Magic, there is also a highly clever, playable game behind it demanding a lot of time, skill and effort. (As has been pointed out before, its learning curve is different from many games - you cannot just learn the basics and then everything slots in on top.) There are many incompetent games companies out there, as there are many incompetent companies full-stop, and it's all too possible to fuck up a card game. But I can fuck up so many different products. And when you look at the time Hasbro has been around, in its various incarnations and acquisitions, and its aggressive business strategy in that sense, it's quite a different kettle of fish to Wizards, maybe not apples and oranges but perhaps acorns vs oak trees. It would also be wise to reflect on just how many lines Hasbro has as compared to Wizards. It is also wise to reflect that, if Hasbro is incredibly successful in the standard game market, it may not be worth a company's time competing with them. The card game market neatly steps outside Hasbro's traditional territory (prior to its acquisition of Wizards), thus giving companies a whole different area to work with. >> >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm >> >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival >> >> Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even >> bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth >> anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand >> for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? > >See above. If your argument is that sets cannot be sold because >then the collectors will not be properly fleeced, you've given >the argument away. You are constructing a polar argument whereby someone gets a bargain or gets fleeced, with no middle ground, or somesuch. It is your right to use words like this, of course, but you must understand the difference between how you use words and how other people understand them. A person can pay a premium without being fleeced. A person can pay below the going rate without getting a bargain. That's how the real world works. >If you argue that scarcity must be preserved >to satisfy the secondary market, you've given the argument away. >I'm mildly amused that you think this is even a debatable point. >By the way, check out the current market price of the >M:tG collectors set, and you aren't even allowed to play >with those. That shows the falsity of your collectors won't >bother to buy sets assertion. *sigh* He didn't say that collectors wouldn't bother to buy sets. If, however, you could just go out and *buy* a set, straight off the shelf, what value would it have to a collector? Significantly less than currently. You also assume that a business model cannot cater for two distinct facets. It is lucky for the rest of us that economics has gone somewhat further than this. Careful manipulation of prices, rarity, power, distribution and such like can produce a very smart business model which appeals to both collectors and players, giving the players what they need card wise whilst also providing tension in the market for collectors. >> And how many Weeks of Nightmares will you get in the process... > >Hey, I know this one too. Ten? And how about if I want ten Wake with Evening's Freshness? Now, were I to be buying starters, I could buy half a dozen of those, get all the commons I really want and be left with a set of rarer cards I can trade with or play with. Under your system, I'd have to buy TEN sets just to get TEN WWeF. Jyhad's rarity system is somewhat more refined. >> and how do you get rid of the 5-7 you don't need? > >Well, it's a Trading Card Game... When you've just destroyed the rarity system, it's somewhat more complex. Demand for trades and the ability to trade are somewhat squashed when a person can just go out and buy a set. >And what a bizarre point of view, especially when you consider how >many cards you'll need to buy to get anywhere near the neighborhood >of 10 Disarms. You buy some cards, picking up, say, 2 Disarms. Then, using the scarcity value of your rare cards as leverage, you trade with other people. It's not terribly difficult and is done by people playing V:TES all round the world. Look at Legbiter's ToGP deck, Noal's Derange hoard, Legbiter's Betrayer deck and such like. >> What a foolish statement. If we (the PLAYERS) were being fleeced, >> then the 'best' cards would have filled up ALL the rare slots, instead >> of the corner-case stuff like Week of Nightmares. > >What a foolish statement. All that is required for the fleecing >is that many uncommon and rare cards be sought at an equal >or higher rate as the common or uncommon (respectively) cards. And this just underlines where you significantly mis-understand everything. Does the fact that Pinot Noir is rarer than Random Cheap White Wine, and more expensive, mean I'm being fleeced? You are taking a company's business model, designed to make a profit so that they can grow, expand, pay the wages, invest in research, spend time creating products players want etc., and assuming that any element of profit is "fleecing". After all, all that is required for fleecing is that they charge us more than they could, surely? (An equally unsupportable statement, compared to your own.) >This phenomenon is enough to cause those seeking >such cards to buy more of the incidental cards than they need or >want (for me, even the commons I use regularly choke my collection >box, such as Deflection and Wake). That you cannot trade successfully is not White Wolf's fault. You are not required to go out and buy 20 starters, or ten sets or any such thing. > From another message in this >thread, you seem to agree, mentioning that you give many such cards >away (meaning you had to buy something you didn't need and didn't >want, and gave it away). This can be referred to as altruism, helpfulness, friendliness and such. >So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on >your person to have robbed you? Must the carnival game be >totally impossible to win before it is considered unfair? >I think not. Your straw-man is beginning to combust. You are, quite rightly, proving that "fleecing" is not the top end of the scale. Your arguments, however, pivot around moving fleecing to the point at which a company makes a profit, whether you care to admit or realise this or not. That fleecing is not the top end does not immediately make it the bottom end. The ability to see shades of grey, rather than bipolar extremes, would be of great benefit to you. It would, for one thing, help you stop constructing straw-men. >> Every single card >> that the V:TES community has looked at and gone "oh, COOL!" (say, >> Summon Soul) would have been rare, driving the value of cards up and >> forcing people to buy huge numbers of boxes in order to be >> competitive. Oh, and I can ASSURE you that the R1 cards would all >> have been ultra-mega game-breaking powerful, too, to maximize the >> demand from munchkins. The 11-cap Independents would have been vastly >> more powerful than Inner Circle members, to make you chase after them >> even more. No rares would have been in the pre-cons, and no reprints, >> EVER, of any card that wasn't a common or vampire. > >No, what you're describing is a (as you like to put it) "corner case" >example of fleecing And finally it kicks in, the fact that variable degrees can occur. Whilst you may continue to refer to a profitable business model as fleecing, the rest of us will continue using he word in a more moderate fashion. You may care to move your impression of the definition of fleecing the rest of us are using somewhat closer to your "corner case". >> THAT's what being fleeced looks like. Instead, White Wolf is simply >> attempting to make a decent profit, so that they can CONTINUE to make >> a profit in the future. And it's pretty obvious, frankly, especially >> when you compare Sabbat War and Final Nights to, say, a certain >> Wizards game. > >Your position seems to rely on the presumption that since we could >be fleeced worse, we are not being fleeced. Not true. Derek's position relies on the fact that not all profit-making business models require fleecing. Your business model for V:TES, where we do not get fleeced, cannot make money, as it refuses to utilise economies of scale, for instance. Hence, if White Wolf are to move to your non-fleecing business model, it requires them to *not* make a profit. When they make a profit, they have to fleece us, by your definitions. This is simply not true; a company can make a profit without fleecing people. Fleece ("To defraud of money or property; swindle." - www.dictionary.com) is quite an extreme form of profit-making and one which your straw-men fail to prove White Wolf indulge in. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3B5139C6...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Really! Wow..can you tell that I only ended up with a few sabbat packs? Actually I always though that there was only a single rare in those packs. Hmm..that way doesn't seem half bad. They were double price too weren't they?(do you know the retail?) Aaron

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:XZVlrW3n...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <c5c47.84389$ih.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason > Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >Your position seems to rely on the presumption that since we could > >be fleeced worse, we are not being fleeced. > > Not true. > > Derek's position relies on the fact that not all profit-making business > models require fleecing. Your business model for V:TES, where we do not > get fleeced, cannot make money, as it refuses to utilise economies of > scale, for instance. Hence, if White Wolf are to move to your > non-fleecing business model, it requires them to *not* make a profit. > When they make a profit, they have to fleece us, by your definitions. > > This is simply not true; a company can make a profit without fleecing > people. Fleece ("To defraud of money or property; swindle." - > www.dictionary.com) is quite an extreme form of profit-making and one > which your straw-men fail to prove White Wolf indulge in. > > > -- > James Coupe I didn't seem to get that fact out of Jason's Post: "if white wolf makes any kind of profit they are fleecing the customers" Jason pointed out right his definition: "All that is required for the fleecing is that many uncommon and rare cards be sought at an equal or higher rate as the common or uncommon (respectively) cards. This phenomenon is enough to cause those seeking such cards to buy more of the incidental cards than they need or want (for me, even the commons I use regularly choke my collection box, such as Deflection and Wake). From another message in this thread, you seem to agree, mentioning that you give many such cards away (meaning you had to buy something you didn't need and didn't want, and gave it away)." This does not fit what you twisted it into. He plainly says, that it seems that you are getting fleeced by buying up tons of cards that you don't need. That he regularly gets rid of extra commons. And that if people are buying things they didn't need, and have no intention of ever using they are getting fleeced. Not what you said: "When they make a profit, they have to fleece us, by your definitions" Cause I just don't see that. Fortunately your straw man is safe, he was on the wrong field. :) Aaron

In message <oAh47.51788$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >This does not fit what you twisted it into. Jason's previous assertions fit exactly what I stated, however, and no amount of definition from him can change was he has asserted. He shows us a way for White Wolf to not fleece us. Due to the way the world works, this *requires* them to not make a profit - it is simply untenable with a trading card game of the magnitude of V:TES. If you can show me a way to print individual cards on demand in volume at a competitive price..... Since the only way we could move to a non-fleecing environment is to prevent the company making a profit, this fits exactly. Jason is repeatedly constructing incoherent straw-men for arguments. They knock down easily. You do not have to twist anything. Pointing out the bare facts does this, because of the inherent flaws and contradictions within them. That is the problem (for Jason) when he creates straw-men. His argument is entirely incoherent and can be pulled apart easily. Jason's arguments need more thought and work. They simply do not hold any sort of water. His motivations may be authentic. However, his understanding and arguments are not workable in their current forms. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:27:55 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:dqv1ltgn19tdf37vr...@4ax.com... >> Except that V:TES is a game first, and a collectible item second. The > >Please decide. Is it Collectible, or a game. Games should be easy to get It's a game first, and a collectible item second. >ahold of and play. Collectability involves having something you want to >collect. If you are making it for collectors, well noone wants to 'collect' And something that's both has to be a hybrid of both, just like V:TES (and other CCGs) are. You can't just sell it outright to the gamers, or the collectible is gone. You can't make some cards hyper-rare (to troll the collectors), or the game is gone. >something you can just out right buy.(that is why collectors tend to be mad >when you do stuff like, say reprint one of the most tough to find cards in a >pre-constructed -guarenteed to be there- starter deck) Players tend to be >mad when you can't get ahold of a card for a deck, and could care less about >collectors or how much money someone wants to make. (I think we are agreed >on this point) Pretty much. That's why you can't pigeonhole it in one or the other. It's BOTH, and the only thing that matters is which gets priority. By filling the rare slots with non-mega-power cards, the game gets priority. >> tons-of-useful-commons are one thing that keeps bringing in new >> players; experienced players buy a load of cards, trim out their >> commons they don't need, and give/trade them away to others (mostly > >"Come play VTES. You don't need to buy cards. We depend on rich folk >giving them away!" Not good for business either. think about it. However, the NEXT sentence is what really makes the tons-of-commons thing go, and why it matters so much to keep it: >> give, really). And the fact that the game is playable at high levels >> with a deck composed of mostly commons is ALSO something that will >> drag new players' interest; the fact that you don't have to go >> rare-chasing to compete. I know that setting aside all my personal See? >> *boggle* most players I know look at Dark Sovereigns and shake their >> heads at the amount of useless paper that came out of it. I know that > >Maybe you are looking at a differnent set. I am looking at the set that >includes: >Aire of Elation >Banishment >Burning Wrath >Closed Session >Corpse Minion >Heidelberg Castle, Germany >Pentex Subversion >Etc. >Tons of good cards. And all I know is, having bought roughly the same And tons of CRAP, such as: Clan Loyalty, Conflict of Interests, Dartmoor, Faithful Servant, Incriminating Videotape, Of Noble Blood, The Treament... the list goes on and on. Not to mention all the clan-based cards that sucked; I mean, there's a REASON Final Nights had to be printed, and it was because the Giovanni and Ravnos were mondo-mega-weak if you tried to use just their Dark Sovereigns stuff. There was a serious paper problem in DS, and most of it revolved around the fact that a huge portion of the set SUCKED ASS. >amount of each set, if I wanted to play a deck using any of the cards from >DS, I would have no trouble(17 of my ultra favorite card Banishment) Versus >the same number of final nights cards where I would probably still be >unable(only 3 of the extra cool Wave of Lethargy) How could you STAND buying so much DS as to get 17 Banishment? I thought you didn't like paper? I bought two boxes; I have 5 Banishments. That seems about right for distribution. But there's no way I'll EVER buy another box of the things, because I just don't want to get so many crap cards. >My point? No rares. Still had great cards but they were easier to get ahold >of. And there were no grand canyons between relative amounts of cards(3 >rare wave of lethargy to 23 common canopic jars VS 10 uncommon pentex >subversions to 14 common Precognizant Mobility) Yeah, but you don't need 10 Pentex. You only need 4-5. Major print screwup in DS; that card should've been rare (and maybe printed twice on the Rare sheet, to make it a little less rare). And while you need a few more Waves of Lethargy, you probably DO need a ton of Canopic Jars; its limited-use/burn effect indicate that you're going to have to keep equipping the damn thing over and over. >> two boxes gives you MORE than enough cards in one aspect, and nowhere >> near enough in another, but it's just not worth it to chase down the >> individual cards that were called "uncommon" but were actually rare. >> (cf. Lyndhurst Estate, a convenient tool for title-weak clans, and I >> have 1 of them after 2 boxes of DS and a small pile of prize-support. > >(FYI: Lyndhurst Estate, New York is from sabbat...like I said I have no idea >what happened there..rarity and distribution nightmare) This explains why I only have 1. Makes much more sense. Not so much a distribution nightmare as it was a rarity nightmare; Wizards went for the power rare scheme (Disarm, Derange), and paid for it in their wallets with a product that didn't sell the way they thought it would. >> I'm NOT buying any more DS, however; I have more than enough of the >> rest, and I'll trade or just deal with it.) This seems to be an >> example of how to print cards POORLY to me, as opposed to "good"? > >Right, poorly done. You only bought a reasonable amount and you have all >the cards you need....wouldn't want to ever have that happen again! But I DON'T actually have all the cards I need. There are many others I'd like to have more of, like Gangrel Revel (only have 1), and some other toys (Nosferatu Performance Art, of which I have zero). Strained Vitae Supply, even. So there really WERE "rare" cards in DS; they just weren't CALLED rares, and fooled everyone. But I'll be damned if I EVER buy more DS, because I can't deal with another ten copies of some of those stupid worthless corner-case commons like Blessing of Durga Syn. This looks like a FAILED rarity model to me, sorry. >> I agree. Which is why you can't just sell sets-on-demand, or >> cards-on-demand; to do that, you have to print tons of stuff that all >> sits around while your players decide what's in demand and what's not, >> and then you eat a LOT of paper for what's not. > >You are right. Cards on demand or sets like that are, by in large, >impractical.(not impossible has been done) > >Either way they seem like a silly idea for Jyhad. But you can still be >collectable/random in other ways then filling up my living room with 41 of >the only usable once per game Ancient Influence vote. I'd like themed That was a screwup in the original Jyhad printing. I think AI is currently only found in the !Ventrue pre-con, where you get exactly one. =) (Which is appropriate.) >boosters myself. Like you said: "how many sets do you want to buy in order >to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of Nightmares will you get in the >process" But if you are getting 10 disarms...wouldn't it be nice to also >get 10 immortal grapples, and 10 pushing the limits, and 10...(insert >several random cards that will back disarms up) No one seems to have >trouble with the pre-constructed starters. You need direct interventions, >you buy !brujah. You want terror frenzy buy ravnos(that just made my day >getting those! :) That goes back to selling cards-on-demand; you shoot yourself in the foot, because how do you know whether people will want Brujah or Ravnos? Themed boosters are a better idea, but if you get a run on Brujah, suddenly you're out; and if it turns out that your Ravnos cards suck, then you end up with a lot of paper backlogged into the distributors, who get pissed off about having all this stock they can't sell. It's a little better than PURE cards-on-demand, but it's still not very good; and the collectors will hate you forever, of course. >I know I know....if you sold people too much of what the want they wouldn't >be forced to buy all the stuff they don't need/won't use. Then we won't The idea isn't to force people to buy things they won't use. >have any VTES at all. But then I would rather pay more, save white wolf >printing cards that will never be used, and just get a little more of what I >want.(access to any card necessary to play a given strategy/deck) They've moved a hell of a lot closer to a good rarity model with FN than they have in any previous expansion; Sabbat War still had its ultra-rares (Bloodform, of which I have yet to see one after roughly three boxes' worth of SW), and they WEREN'T judged all that well. Bloodform would have been an excellent throw-in for VIC decks to be able to survive Potence Rush combat; but when it's a pain in the ass to get even 1 of them, why bother? I'd be wanting to use about 4. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > news:3B5139C6...@netcom.com... > > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > > How many canopic jars do we need, per week of nightmares. > > > Actually, I will give white wolf some credit. They have taken some of > > > the paper out of booster packs. The super fat, more expensive sabbat > > > packs suck. Actually, as a collector first I prefer not to have to > > > lug tons of paper around my house. And I like that the packs now > > > contain less common cards. Good for everyone. > > > > Then you should prefer Sabbat. Sabbat packs have 2 rares per 16 common > > cards: an 8/1 ratio of the rarest to the most common card. Sabbat Wars, I meant to say "Final Nights", not "Sabbat Wars" here. > > the ratio is 14/1, doubling the number of common slots since the most > > common card is a C2 compared to an R1. The curve in Final Nights is > > actually considerably steeper. > Really! Wow..can you tell that I only ended up with a few sabbat packs? > Actually I always though that there was only a single rare in those packs. Nope. There should have been two. > Hmm..that way doesn't seem half bad. They were double price too weren't > they?(do you know the retail?) I don't recall exact retail. Potomac Distribution once had it up back when they were still selling it (I think $240 some dollars was the last price they were asking before it sold out) and I recall it was roughly comparable for the number of cards in the pack. Fred

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Really! Wow..can you tell that I only ended up with a few sabbat packs? >Actually I always though that there was only a single rare in those packs. >Hmm..that way doesn't seem half bad. They were double price too weren't >they?(do you know the retail?) Nope. They were less than double price. Retail was $3.95 per super-booster. Comparing 28 cards from That Other Card Game, you would've paid about $5.75 for the same number of cards... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:15:48 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:XZVlrW3n...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <c5c47.84389$ih.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason >> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> >Your position seems to rely on the presumption that since we could >> >be fleeced worse, we are not being fleeced. Interestingly, neither Jason's original message or James Coupe's response has made it to my news server yet. Did you post it in HTML, perhaps? My server automatically kills all HTML posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

well, neither post has gotten to me yet, so I'll lob out a response to -this- one, at least. On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:15:48 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I didn't seem to get that fact out of Jason's Post: "if white wolf makes any >kind of profit they are fleecing the customers" >Jason pointed out right his definition: Unfortunately for him, his definition isn't the actual one. James used dictionary.com, and I'll use www.yourdictionary.com ... Main Entry: fleece Function: transitive verb Date: 1537 Inflected Form(s): fleeced; fleec.ing 1. (a) to strip of money or property by fraud or extortion (b) to charge excessively for goods or services The applicable definition is (b). So, for us to be getting fleeced, White Wolf needs to be charging us excessively in some fashion for the "goods", aka the cards. >"All that is required for the fleecing is that many uncommon and rare cards >be sought at an equal or higher rate as the common or uncommon >(respectively) cards. This phenomenon is enough to cause those seeking >such cards to buy more of the incidental cards than they need or want (for >me, even the commons I use regularly choke my collection box, such as >Deflection and Wake). From another message in this thread, you seem to >agree, mentioning that you give many such cards away (meaning you had to buy >something you didn't need and didn't want, and gave it away)." This "definition" is incoherent at best, and seems to revolve around the assertion that fleecing is being "forced" to buy cards you don't want in order to get cards you DO want. He then mentions two Jyhad-original cards (which were printed under WotC's business model and are therefore irrelevant to his own statement) to support this assertion. And he then mentions something I said about how I ditch some of my tons-of-commons and therefore I've been forced to buy something I didn't need. Since the base assertion is false, we can move on and determine whether or not we're being charged excessively for our cards. How do we do that? Well, you'd assume that if you were paying more for a card than its actual value (plus a reasonable profit to the seller), you were being charged excessively. Simple enough. Cards, and V:TES itself, are a luxury item. Main Entry: lux.u.ry Function: noun Date: 14th century 3. (a) something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary (b) an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease This means that nobody ever NEEDS V:TES cards. Being without your cards does not mean you will either starve or sleep in the rain -- you're going to have to refuse to pay your rent to do that. White Wolf is, currently, the only source of these cards. As such, they set a price on them, and we choose whether or not to buy at that price. They hold a monopoly on these goods; if we wish to have these cards, we must buy from WW. This means that WW can set any price they want to on these cards, and "random distribution" can be part of that price. But cards are a luxury. If we think their price is too expensive, we don't buy the cards, we lose nothing, and WW loses money. This goes right back to the basic unit of capitalism/economics that I've hit on repeatedly in here: A thing's value is what someone is willing to pay for it. So as it turns out, if we're willing to pay their price, then we're not being fleeced... because that's exactly what the value of the cards is. For your $3.95[0], you're getting 7 common cards, 3 vampires, and 1 rare, in a random distribution, and you can decide what piece of that $3.95 each card is worth yourself. Any subjective value that people assign to the cards LATER is just that; a subjective value that has absolutely no relation to the goods as they are sold. When it comes right down to it, we're all busily fleecing each other. Especially those singles-sellers who are selling individual copies of R1s for $10-$15. THOSE people are fleecing you. But not White Wolf. They only make that $3.95, and that's divided among 11 cards. -- Derek [0] I have no idea what an individual booster of FN costs, nor am I even sure that 7/3/1 is the appropriate distribution of C/V/R inside the booster. I don't care enough to look it up, and it isn't relevant anyway, so please don't waste my time nit-picking.

> Well, White Wolf embraced a bomb known as V:tES. The number > of bombs in Trading Card Games is probably as high or higher > than dot.com flameouts, and with much smaller investments. > Standard game production is a more successful profit model than > the Trading Card industry, as far as I've seen. After all, Hasbro > (standard game company) bought Wizards (most successful > Trading Card company of all time). This is called," entry into an unsaturated market." Hasbro is a category-Killer in most of its game markets. It was not in the TCG market until its aquisition of Wizards. Messing with Hasbro is like dancing with elephants. It looks really cool until the damn thing steps on your foot. Kudos to White Wolf. > > >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm > > >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival > > > > Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even > > bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth > > anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand > > for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? > > See above. If your argument is that sets cannot be sold because > then the collectors will not be properly fleeced, you've given > the argument away. If you argue that scarcity must be preserved > to satisfy the secondary market, you've given the argument away. > I'm mildly amused that you think this is even a debatable point. > By the way, check out the current market price of the > M:tG collectors set, and you aren't even allowed to play > with those. That shows the falsity of your collectors won't > bother to buy sets assertion. > It's called capitalism. It is the basis of modern business (revenue > costs). > And what a bizarre point of view, especially when you consider how > many cards you'll need to buy to get anywhere near the neighborhood > of 10 Disarms. I say neighborhood since I'm allowing that you'll > be able to trade for some of them (though I've had little luck > on that particular card). Otherwise, you can still buy less than 10 > sets and trade for the Disarms with the extra [insert card that > doesn't suit you]. What is preventing you from doing that now. > So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on > your person to have robbed you? Techinically, robbery construes violence upon one's person, so he could steal everything you owned and not have robbed you. All robbers are theives, but all theives are not robbers. Please restate your analogy. > No, what you're describing is a (as you like to put it) "corner case" > example of fleecing, where WW would attempt to maximize the > number of packs the core competing community would have to buy > to get the required tournament cards. Even your example might > not maximize WW's profits, as it would turn off the casual > player who found that he could not play with the chaff he received > from a reasonable buy-in ($30 for most table-top games, but > you'd be hard pressed to put together a good deck from packs > at that level, maybe with the help of a starter, if you knew > going in what you wanted to play). Your situation above might > even turn off the serious but non-tournament player, who finds > that he can't get the cards he's read about without shelling out > a ridiculous (ok, more ridiculous) amount of money. > Your argument of "it could be worse" to counter the idea that > it is bad is sophomoric, particularly since I have already allowed > that it could be worse (WotC). Welcome, to capitalism. Enjoy your stay here. If you would like to try a different model of economics to market your trading card game, sell them in Iran. > Your position seems to rely on the presumption that since we could > be fleeced worse, we are not being fleeced. I provided my opinion > of that in the arguments above. I've already allowed that WotC is > worse, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in that vein. Your problem is that you have not created a absolute line that differentiates normal acceptable businesses that makes a profit from usery. > If I have a chance to win the stuffed animal if I > play enough times, that doesn't make the carnival game > fair, regardless of whether the carnival's profits hinge > on my doing so. > Let's look at this example. Fair to who is what we need to ask. If you can win a $5.00 cupie doll on your first $1.00 toss then you have beated the odds. If you spend $10.00 and never win anything, than you have not. Welcome to games of chance. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Derek Ray wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:15:48 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" > <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I didn't seem to get that fact out of Jason's Post: "if white wolf makes any > >kind of profit they are fleecing the customers" > >Jason pointed out right his definition: > > Unfortunately for him, his definition isn't the actual one. James > used dictionary.com, and I'll use www.yourdictionary.com ... > > Main Entry: fleece > Function: transitive verb > Date: 1537 > Inflected Form(s): fleeced; fleec.ing > 1. (a) to strip of money or property by fraud or extortion (b) to > charge excessively for goods or services > > The applicable definition is (b). > > So, for us to be getting fleeced, White Wolf needs to be charging us > excessively in some fashion for the "goods", aka the cards. To play Devil's Advocate here, you can make an argument that they (and anyone else who uses rarity levels to the same effect) are fleecing their customers by this definition. Consider how rarity levels inevitably make common cards irrelevant after a certain number of packs have been purchased. (This would not be true if common cards were typically used in decks at the same ratio to rare cards that they appeared in packs. Even in Jyhad, however - without its card limits and with some obvious attention being paid to which cards get used more often, this is just not the case. The imbalance in frequency to utility forces us to buy cards which are ultimately useless to us. Once you take this into account, it's fair to say that after a point, you're paying the entire pack price for only (the use of) the rare card and uncommon cards. Or only the rare card in the extreme. The rest of the cards we're simply forced to accept to complete the deal. Viewed that way, the cost of a pack for the single card or the small handful of cards could be seen as excessive and that we're being "fleeced". Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes > > > >This does not fit what you twisted it into. > > Jason's previous assertions fit exactly what I stated, however, and no > amount of definition from him can change was he has asserted. Congratulations, James. You have just stated a working definition of your straw man. If my argument is what you say and not what I say, it is not my argument, particularly if "no amount of definition" from me can change it from what you say. Have fun attacking your caricature of my position. - Jason Bell

>You can't make some cards hyper-rare (to >troll the collectors), or the game is gone. It's been done. It won't kill a game by itself, but I think good CCGs can broaden their player base if they didn't resort to such strategies.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:46:25 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> Main Entry: fleece >> Function: transitive verb >> Date: 1537 >> Inflected Form(s): fleeced; fleec.ing >> 1. (a) to strip of money or property by fraud or extortion (b) to >> charge excessively for goods or services >> >> The applicable definition is (b). >> >> So, for us to be getting fleeced, White Wolf needs to be charging us >> excessively in some fashion for the "goods", aka the cards. > >To play Devil's Advocate here, you can make an argument that they (and anyone >else who uses rarity levels to the same effect) are fleecing their customers >by this definition. Consider how rarity levels inevitably make common cards >irrelevant after a certain number of packs have been purchased. (This would However, one has to purchase a LARGE number of packs to reach this point. Are customers who purchase less than that number being 'fleeced'? Obviously not. >not be true if common cards were typically used in decks at the same ratio to >rare cards that they appeared in packs. Even in Jyhad, however - without its >card limits and with some obvious attention being paid to which cards get used >more often, this is just not the case. The imbalance in frequency to utility >forces us to buy cards which are ultimately useless to us. Once you take this Two incorrect assumptions; first, that you're being forced. It has been shown time -and- again that it's possible to make competitive decks of commons/uncommons only. You just don't get much variety that way. Also, cards are a luxury; you never NEED to buy cards. Second, that the cards are ultimately useless. I consider a pile of "gift commons" to be highly useful insofar as encouraging new players to keep playing; not to mention those commons are always available for trade when you want to make, say, the 35-Cryptic-Mission deck. And if you're into that sort of thing, there's always "rape the newbies" where you offer them 10 of your spare commons for 1 of their rares. Without players, the game dies and ALL your cards are useless. =) >into account, it's fair to say that after a point, you're paying the entire pack >price for only (the use of) the rare card and uncommon cards. Or only the rare >card in the extreme. The rest of the cards we're simply forced to accept to >complete the deal. Viewed that way, the cost of a pack for the single card or >the small handful of cards could be seen as excessive and that we're being >"fleeced". However, you DO get one rare card per pack. And theoretically, you can trade that rare card to anyone else for a rare card that YOU want more. In practice, this is probably not very difficult to manage at all; it simply requires a very anti-materialistic attitude towards one's own rares, and a significant determination to get one specific rare (Noal's Derange hoard). You could also trade the vampires and the commons in the same fashion. Most people do not have such an attitude; they want somehow to get either more rares than they've purchased, or they want to get other rares without having to give up their own. If you want to have an enormous variety of options, yes, you ARE going to have to buy a large amount of cards, no matter what form they're sold in. The price of the goods is still the same though, no matter what. The perceived value afterwards is set by the PLAYERS, not by anything White Wolf does. Any fleecing that's being done is all by the players to themselves, or to other players. -- Derek

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > This "definition" is incoherent at best, and seems to revolve around > the assertion that fleecing is being "forced" to buy cards you don't > want in order to get cards you DO want. He then mentions two > Jyhad-original cards (which were printed under WotC's business model > and are therefore irrelevant to his own statement) to support this > assertion. Talk about incoherent. If my use of Wake and Deflection bother you as examples, feel free to use any of the C2's produced in the Final Nights expansion. It is bizarre on the border of absurd to claim that my examples (that are demonstrative of a characteristic of the C-U-R distribution of all Deckmaster games) are irrelevant because WotC originally printed those particular cards. You seem to have no desire to address the point, merely to assail the minutiae. Oh well, have a ball. > But cards are a luxury. If we think their price is too expensive, we > don't buy the cards, we lose nothing, and WW loses money. This goes > right back to the basic unit of capitalism/economics that I've hit on > repeatedly in here: > > A thing's value is what someone is willing to pay for it. You'd make a terrible economist. Monopoly power has very little to do with the "basic unit of capitalism/economics that [you've] hit on repeatedly in here." If you changed your metric to "A thing's value to a person is the maximum that person is willing to pay for it." you'd be closer to the mark, but you'd still probably be stunningly ignorant of what you're talking about. You'd of course miss how monopolies distort markets and lead to economic inefficiencies (dead weight losses) that are not in society's interest. But by all means, continue shouting your one out-of-tune note. > So as it turns out, if we're willing to pay their price, then we're > not being fleeced... because that's exactly what the value of the > cards is. For your $3.95[0], you're getting 7 common cards, 3 > vampires, and 1 rare, in a random distribution, and you can decide > what piece of that $3.95 each card is worth yourself. So, in order to miss my point, you huddle so very closely to the strictest definition of the word (a word I didn't even bring to the discussion, merely took up to make my points). You've also missed the larger point behind the sight unseen product delivery model. You are likely to never realize the $2.75 in any individual pack. You will either undershoot (crappy rare or extra copies of ones you don't want, a situation that becomes more likely as the number of packs you buy increases) or overshoot (lucked into a card you needed). My overarching point has been (or tried to be) that a company with the interests of its players at heart would tend to try to provide more and diverse methods to get its product to its players. That's why it surpises me that WW has not attempted such methods, the easist of which would be selling sets. Of course WW has every right to do their business as they see fit, I had just fancied them to be more customer-friendly than the previous card company I patronized. I am prepared to be wrong. You, of course, are allowed to counter with the idea that to sell sets would crash the entire Deckmaster model, but I disagree, and if it be true, then it only furthers my point that this delivery model exists to the detriment of customers. > Any subjective > value that people assign to the cards LATER is just that; a subjective > value that has absolutely no relation to the goods as they are sold. Talk about someone with no sense of economics. Wow. > When it comes right down to it, we're all busily fleecing each other. > Especially those singles-sellers who are selling individual copies of > R1s for $10-$15. THOSE people are fleecing you. But not White Wolf. > They only make that $3.95, and that's divided among 11 cards. Wow, we couldn't disagree more. The secondary market for singles strikes me as a far more honest transaction. As a customer, I know exactly what I'm getting, and exactly how much getting it is going to cost me, so I have all the information needed to make an efficient economic decision. Compare that with the iterative pack buying until success, or the transaction costs associated with finding someone to trade for the cards (probably a bit lower in places there are more players, depending on the card). - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on > > your person to have robbed you? > > Techinically, robbery construes violence upon one's person, so he > could steal > everything you owned and not have robbed you. All robbers are > theives, but all theives are not robbers. Please restate your > analogy. Why, so you can intentionally misconstrue it for some other reason? - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > If I have a chance to win the stuffed animal if I > > play enough times, that doesn't make the carnival game > > fair, regardless of whether the carnival's profits hinge > > on my doing so. > > > > Let's look at this example. Fair to who is what we need to ask. > If you can win a $5.00 cupie doll on your first $1.00 toss then you > have beated the odds. If you spend $10.00 and never win anything, > than > you have not. Welcome to games of chance. If this is a serious response, then we may very well be in substantial agreement. I would like very much to buy V:tES cards, but unfortunately, if I want them from WW, I am instead required to play a game of chance. What I would prefer is an option to buy the cards themselves from WW, but instead I must buy them from the secondary market, play the game of chance a large enough number of times to approach certainty of outcome (what I do now, and what most serious players do), or pool the games of chances with a number of others stuck in the same position I am (trading, which is difficult considering the number of people who play Jyhad, and that many seek the same cards). I'd like another option, and I don't think it's unreasonable to want one. - Jason Bell

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:46:25 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > >To play Devil's Advocate here, you can make an argument that they (and anyone > >else who uses rarity levels to the same effect) are fleecing their customers > >by this definition. Consider how rarity levels inevitably make common cards > >irrelevant after a certain number of packs have been purchased. (This would > > However, one has to purchase a LARGE number of packs to reach this > point. Are customers who purchase less than that number being > 'fleeced'? Obviously not. Agreed; obviously not. It's a concept that hinges on the number of packs one has purchased and until one has saturated his need for commons it doesn't kick in. However, describing the number of "large" misses the point. The point is that one type of card is harder to get than the other. Though the commons may be generally more useful, I don't think anyone's going to argue that they're seven times (ignoring the R1 issue) as useful on average than the rares. Some are that useful and and more, but most aren't. So when you've got enough commons, you're still underendowed of most rares. You can ignore the deficiency and suffer their lack which will cost you victory points - at least around the margins. You can trade and attempt to specialize, which is what I suspect a lot of people do. That's OK if you happen to be good at and like trading. It's asking to be fleeced by someone else if not. You can continue to buy packs and be "fleeced" by White Wolf, as you now only need a few of the cards in each pack. Or you can buy singles which is kind of roundabout way of doing the same thing (there's an efficiency in splitting up the singles from whole boxes between different people who need different individual cards but it's compromised by the single sellers who want their cut in the process). > > >not be true if common cards were typically used in decks at the same ratio to > >rare cards that they appeared in packs. Even in Jyhad, however - without its > >card limits and with some obvious attention being paid to which cards get used > >more often, this is just not the case. The imbalance in frequency to utility > >forces us to buy cards which are ultimately useless to us. Once you take this > > Two incorrect assumptions; first, that you're being forced. It has > been shown time -and- again that it's possible to make competitive > decks of commons/uncommons only. "Competitive decks". But not optimal. As I said, you'll at least lose victory points around the margins doing that. > You just don't get much variety that > way. Also, cards are a luxury; you never NEED to buy cards. Not exactly a valid objection, however. The point was about getting "fleeced". No one need play or collect this game at all if you want to insert that requirement. No one could be getting "fleeced", then. But you've subtly changed the definition of being fleeced to something akin to getting robbed. I will concede, however (as I did above), that if you're prepared to settle for less than an optimal card collection, you can avoid being fleeced by this definition. It's only those who choose to have the greater Jyhad CCG experience who must submit to the declining return on the number of useful cards they get for their money. > Second, that the cards are ultimately useless. I consider a pile of > "gift commons" to be highly useful insofar as encouraging new players > to keep playing; That's not really valid. If you get the new players using commons, now _they_ have to make the decision whether it's worth playing without uncommons or rares or else invest money to get useful cards that start out at the steep rate (after all, they already have enough commons!). So you haven't eliminated the problem, you've just passed it along to another person. > not to mention those commons are always available for > trade when you want to make, say, the 35-Cryptic-Mission deck. I was already taking that kind of thing into account. You really have to look at the overall picture when you're thinking this issue through. Yes, there are commons (a few) that you can use as 40% or more of a focused decks. There are commons like WwEF and Forced Awakening that will appear at lower levels but in so many different decks that collections get strained to provide enough of them to people who like to keep a lot of decks built simultaneously. But overall, commons on average are not going to be 7 times as useful as rares. > And if > you're into that sort of thing, there's always "rape the newbies" > where you offer them 10 of your spare commons for 1 of their rares. Again, that's just moving the problem to a different person. > >into account, it's fair to say that after a point, you're paying the entire pack > >price for only (the use of) the rare card and uncommon cards. Or only the rare > >card in the extreme. The rest of the cards we're simply forced to accept to > >complete the deal. Viewed that way, the cost of a pack for the single card or > >the small handful of cards could be seen as excessive and that we're being > >"fleeced". > > However, you DO get one rare card per pack. And theoretically, you > can trade that rare card to anyone else for a rare card that YOU want > more. In practice, this is probably not very difficult to manage at > all; it simply requires a very anti-materialistic attitude towards > one's own rares, and a significant determination to get one specific > rare (Noal's Derange hoard). You could also trade the vampires and > the commons in the same fashion. It also requires skill and/or a lack of concern about getting the worst of a trade. And you have to let go of ever wanting to play decks requiring the things you give to get what you want. But yea, that's probably the most efficient solution for people who need to economize on money. It doesn't ultimately dispute what I'm saying, though. > Most people do not have such an attitude; they want somehow to get > either more rares than they've purchased, or they want to get other > rares without having to give up their own. If you want to have an > enormous variety of options, yes, you ARE going to have to buy a large > amount of cards, no matter what form they're sold in. Exactly. > The price of the goods is still the same though, no matter what. The > perceived value afterwards is set by the PLAYERS, not by anything > White Wolf does. The perceived value is always set by the customers. The act in question would be called "bundling" in the high tech world. You have buy this to get this. You have to buy 7 commons to get one rare. You don't need 7 more commons? Tough. That's the deal. I'm not complaining about it myself. As you say, no one's holding a gun to my head. And it's one of the ways, probably the major way, CCGs generate sufficient sales and thus profit to insure the continued development of the game. I'm just saying that forcing people to buy commons they don't need to get rare cards they want is, IMHO, a decent enough reason to use the word "fleece" WRT the practice given the dictionary definition you quoted. Fred

In message <_bm47.86981$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >If my argument is what you say and not what >I say, No, your argument changes from moment to moment. Your definitions do not fit your words, and cannot be made to do so. When you have a coherent argument, try again. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<J_m47.87404$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Obviously, so we can communicate in an adult fashion using adult words that have specific meaning. Are you an adult? Then speak like an adult and use analogies that apply. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<zjn47.87712$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > If I have a chance to win the stuffed animal if I > > > play enough times, that doesn't make the carnival game > > > fair, regardless of whether the carnival's profits hinge > > > on my doing so. > > > > > > > Let's look at this example. Fair to who is what we need to ask. > > If you can win a $5.00 cupie doll on your first $1.00 toss then you > > have beated the odds. If you spend $10.00 and never win anything, > > than > > you have not. Welcome to games of chance. > > If this is a serious response, then we may very well be > in substantial agreement. > I would like very much to buy V:tES cards, but unfortunately, > if I want them from WW, I am instead required to play a > game of chance. What I would prefer is an option to buy > the cards themselves from WW, but instead I must buy them > from the secondary market, play the game of chance a > large enough number of times to approach certainty of > outcome (what I do now, and what most serious players > do), or pool the games of chances with a > number of others stuck in the same position I > am (trading, which is difficult considering the number > of peopl e who play Jyhad, and that many seek the same > cards). The problem with your preferences is that it makes impossible to print a 160 card set. Possibly if they printed a 52 card set then this would be possible. Unfortunantly, it would be an inventory nightmare for them to house and invest in an inventory that would only move the obviously powerful cards. It would bankrupt White Wolf. If this was your model of distribution, then WotC would have sat on all those Immortal Grapples until a few years ago when it became evident that it was a key card. If you could change the past then probably IG combat would not be where it is today if people could cherry pick every set. It was that players had these cards and had to figure out how they worked. It also helped that at the time, VTES was a complete failure. It was vastly overprinted. Distributors were stuck with vast amounts of inventory and cut prices like logging companies in the Brazillian rainforrest. > I'd like another option, and I don't think it's > unreasonable to want one. If you were around a few years ago, then you would have had one. That option was to buy the cards dirt cheap. It was supply greatly exceeded demand. Now, it is supply and demand are roughly equal and the cards are holding their value. Singles are to be found on the secondary market where their value is justified by the demand for them, but they will almost never go for below their indiviual price as a percentage of retail price. This is another economic feature: the upward stickiness of prices. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bke3ltk002r9io3g5...@4ax.com... > well, neither post has gotten to me yet, so I'll lob out a response to > -this- one, at least. > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:15:48 GMT, "The Nosferatu Stuff" > <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I didn't seem to get that fact out of Jason's Post: "if white wolf makes any > >kind of profit they are fleecing the customers" > >Jason pointed out right his definition: > > Unfortunately for him, his definition isn't the actual one. James > used dictionary.com, and I'll use www.yourdictionary.com ... Derek, come on now. You are a smart guy. Why do you try to purposefully waste time? The issue is not which term is being used to describe the topic of discussion. I'm sure you could figure out that the topic is why I don't like buying a pack of cards, and getting a ton of commons I don't need. Think about it, if white wolf cut 1 common out of a 15 card pack, they just saved printing costs of 7%. Not too bad. Now all those $2.75 packs only cost $2.55. Sell them for $2.60....No big deal, but suddenly I can buy 1 extra pack for every booster box. What's the difference...well white wolf just started making an extra $.05 per pack, and I'm hoarding a lot less useless paper(any card I have over 30 of is almost guaranteed to be useless to me) My ratio of cards just went up (less commons to rares) Oh, and I'm getting the rare in that extra pack. Where is this a bad thing? Or making slightly more broken down sets. Imagine if boosters for final nights came as ::Followers of Set & Assamite:: and ::Giovanni & Ravnos:: Save me some time and don't say "what if everyone only wants to buy giovanni? Then the retailers fill up with the off packs" Cause the same thing should have happened with the preconstructed starters..and I haven't seen any problems with those.(have there been any to your knowledge?) I am just trying to explore different ways of packaging, distributing, and selling cards. Do I feel 'fleeced' or anything else negative you want to pull from dictionary.com, well not yet. Do I feel that there could be different/better ways of going about the card mix, sure. I'm sure I'm not the only one that takes out the rares/some of the uncommons and throws out the rest of the pack. Aaron (I know we got a little off topic with the Dark Sovereigns thing. I was looking at it like, huh, Derek has enough of the cards to make decks so he won't buy anymore...must be something good about that card mix. While you were hung up on the fact that you didn't like that cards themselves, not the fact that you got a better distribution of cards/didn't have to buy as many)

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > > > >If my argument is what you say and not what > >I say, > > No, your argument changes from moment to moment. Your definitions do > not fit your words, and cannot be made to do so. Again, you can say so, but saying doesn't make it so. I defined my use of terms at some length, and have no obligation to adhere to your dictionary definition of a slang term. I feel bad for you if you disagree with what I said, but don't claim I didn't say it. Additionally, I don't believe my position in this argument has been ill-conceived, ambiguous or inconsistent. The only point I've backed away from is the idea that a card producer could easily offer a market of singles, on account of the vagueries of demand. I stand by my stance that random R-U-C card distribution forces consumers buy cards that they neither want nor need. Feel free to disagree, but it's perfectly coherent. > When you have a coherent argument, try again. Incoherent argument by decree. How very convenient for you. - Jason Bell

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] WotC did it very cleverly (though not originally) with foil versions of regular cards. It strictly targets collectors for extra sales, as there is something different and more rare to accumulate, though it causes few ripples in the overall game community, as there is no additional functionality to the ultra-rare foil cards. They were also careful to avoid placing foil commons in rare slots, which would upset the non-collectors who were promised the 1R-3U-11C. Diabolical. - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > > So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on > > > > your person to have robbed you? > > > > > > Techinically, robbery construes violence upon one's person, so he > > > could steal > > > everything you owned and not have robbed you. All robbers are > > > theives, but all theives are not robbers. Please restate your > > > analogy. > > > > Why, so you can intentionally misconstrue it for some > > other reason? > > Obviously, so we can communicate in an adult fashion using adult > words that have specific meaning. Are you an adult? Then speak > like an adult and use analogies that apply. I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, which is why I cannot believe that your mind cannot track the analogy as written. Thus I presumed that you had intentionally misconstrued the analogy, that you were being intentionally obtuse. Or perhaps you're one of those trolls who enjoys pouncing on grammar and spelling, I cannot be sure. But either way, I stand by my response. - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > The problem with your preferences is that it makes impossible > to print a 160 card set. Possibly if they printed a 52 card > set then this would be possible. Unfortunantly, it would be > an inventory nightmare for them to house and invest in an inventory > that would only move the obviously powerful cards. It would bankrupt > White Wolf. Yes, I understand the difficulties of selling singles, and accept that there are very good reasons for WW to decline to do so. I have yet to hear such good reasons against selling sets, only some badly supported assertions about how it would destroy all life as we know it (or something along those lines). WW already sells groups of cards explicitly by title, the preconstructed clan decks. I like very much this opportunity to buy the actual cards (I now know how much Dreams costs, and where to go to get it), as opposed to the blind chance of packs, and would like that opportunity on a full-set scale (without getting the secondary market middle-men involved). > > I'd like another option, and I don't think it's > > unreasonable to want one. > > If you were around a few years ago, then you would have had one. That > option was to buy the cards dirt cheap. I was, and I did. I bought a positively indecent amount of Jyhad at $5 per box. The sad truth, I still don't have nearly enough Freak Drives, Kine Dominance (only owned 1! until a big V:tES buy a few weeks ago), and any number of other rares and even some uncommons. What I do have is an enormous amount of commons. Not as bad as my boxes upon boxes of M:tG wallpaper (or basement ballast, depending on how you look at it), but still enough to make anyone reflect on the waste of it all. > Singles are to be found > on the secondary market where their value is justified by the demand > for them, but they will almost never go for below their indiviual > price as a percentage of retail price. Grin, in one sentence, you show yourself to be a superior economist to Derek (see elsewhere in this thread). > This is another economic feature: the upward stickiness > of prices. Until the game crashes again, of course. I hope very much that WW does not attempt to model their business on the frenetic set release that WotC does for Magic (3 new sets per year or so), and I wonder if the tournament people will ever destroy their player base with Type I / Type II distinctions that turned Magic into the hollow shell driven by adolescents spending their parents' money. Time will tell. - Jason Bell

Derek Ray wrote: > And tons of CRAP, such as: > > Clan Loyalty, Conflict of Interests, Dartmoor, Faithful Servant, > Incriminating Videotape, Of Noble Blood, The Treament... the list goes > on and on. Not to mention all the clan-based cards that sucked; I > mean, there's a REASON Final Nights had to be printed, and it was > because the Giovanni and Ravnos were mondo-mega-weak if you tried to > use just their Dark Sovereigns stuff. > Faithful Servant and Incrim Video are not crap at all. ;) Try using th FS for a locked down pool generator. 2 FS, then go to torpor, drop a Secure haven on the Vampire, a blood doll and your set. With Pier 13 the IV is just play nasty. Right Noal! Ouch. Ended up with a video tape for each and every minion I brought up, could not block anyactions what so every, then got rapidly bled out with Superior Social Charms. But there are a lot of weak cards in DS. I do admit that and even Noal cannot make many of them into anything usefull. Raille

James Coupe wrote: > He shows us a way for White Wolf to not fleece us. Due to the way the > world works, this *requires* them to not make a profit - it is simply > untenable with a trading card game of the magnitude of V:TES. If you > can show me a way to print individual cards on demand in volume at a > competitive price..... > You do it the same way the Ebook and pay music download industry does this. You pay a fee, download the file and print that out. Afix that to card stock. Of course since each user has variable printer function, this scenario needs to be slightly altered. So, pay fee. WW takes the basic card you purchased, prints that out on a very nice laser printer on qualified card stock and mails this off to you. If WW wanted to go a step beyond, the could contract with a printer, have the printer maintain the individual card templates, route all the purchases to the printer and have those card shipped directly from the printer. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] This is great idea, except you negate all rarities and trading therefore becomes obsolete. It wouldn't bother me none, but trading is one way of getting to meet and greet other players. Andy Setite ruler of Cambridge www.geocities.com/setitesuk -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

In message <Pjw47.90662$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> No, your argument changes from moment to moment. Your definitions do >> not fit your words, and cannot be made to do so. > >Again, you can say so, but saying doesn't make it so. No, indeed not, though the facts are there. However, you are continually proposing an unworkable business model which requires a company to lose money. In Britain, a company is required by law to make money for its share-holders. I imagine something similar is the case in America. You are continually using highly inappropriate and potentially legally-dubious words such as "fleecing". White Wolf are, in no way, extorting money from us. You would do well to moderate your language to something similar to the commonly accepted definition of "fleece", because it can just be pushed over without trying. You believe that you can estimate a print run for a set, when you can't estimate it for the individual cards - which you are printing individually. An interesting assertion at best, the set being comprised of individual cards. You are requiring other people to make polar decisions, unable to deal with the fact that two things can occur at once in the real world. And so forth. Your straw-men are so frail it really doesn't take much of a big bad wolf to blow them down, even if they don't spontaneously combust. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >I stand by my stance that random R-U-C card distribution >forces consumers buy cards that they neither want nor need. Selling packages (random or not, with different rarity levels or not) of cards (even "factory sets") "forces" consumers to buy cards that they neither want nor need. The only way to avoid this is by selling singles, whereby the consumers buy exactly the cards they want or need and nothing more. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

In message <uFw47.90867$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Obviously, so we can communicate in an adult fashion using adult >> words that have specific meaning. Are you an adult? Then speak >> like an adult and use analogies that apply. > >I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, We are. Adults do not go round accusing a company attempting to make a profit to pay its staff of fleecing customers or implying that it is acting like a thief. If you believe it is adult, polite, gentlemanly or acceptable to do so, you are wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B52BC2C...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> He shows us a way for White Wolf to not fleece us. Due to the way the >> world works, this *requires* them to not make a profit - it is simply >> untenable with a trading card game of the magnitude of V:TES. If you >> can show me a way to print individual cards on demand in volume at a >> competitive price..... >> > >You do it the same way the Ebook and pay music download industry does >this. > >You pay a fee, download the file and print that out. Afix that to card >stock. Of course since each user has variable printer function, this >scenario needs to be slightly altered. > >So, pay fee. WW takes the basic card you purchased, prints that out on >a very nice laser printer on qualified card stock and mails this off to >you. That shows us how to print individual cards. However, this involves: 1) No economies of scale - you are using the printer one by one, sporadically, whenever 2) Man power for printing 3) Man power for mailing 4) Cost of shipping If a card costs A under the current system, to print, under this system it would be: A + 1) + 2) + 3) + 4) which is going to be significantly more. Labour is not cheap. Hence my use of the term "competitive price". With this, singles are going to cost as much as buying singles on the second-hand market does now, or close thereto, I would've thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <60x47.90937$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Yes, I understand the difficulties of selling singles, and accept >that there are very good reasons for WW to decline to do so. >I have yet to hear such good reasons against selling sets, >only some badly supported assertions about how it would >destroy all life as we know it (or something along those lines). *yawn* Keep up at the back there. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You are continually using highly inappropriate and potentially >legally-dubious words such as "fleecing". White Wolf are, in no way, >extorting money from us. You would do well to moderate your language to >something similar to the commonly accepted definition of "fleece", >because it can just be pushed over without trying. Hey, it's not completely Jason's fault! Here in the U.S, our definition and concept of "fleece" has been thoroughly messed up by Old Navy's "Performance Fleece." Damned be Magic the Dog and that lady with the big glasses! =) Halcyan 2

>I was, and I did. I bought a positively indecent amount of Jyhad >at $5 per box. The sad truth, I still don't have nearly enough >Freak Drives, Kine Dominance (only owned 1! until a big V:tES buy >a few weeks ago), and any number of other rares and even some >uncommons. What I do have is an enormous amount of commons. >Not as bad as my boxes upon boxes of M:tG wallpaper (or >basement ballast, depending on how you look at it), but >still enough to make anyone reflect on the waste of it all. Hey, I have absolutely 0 Freak Drives and 0 Kine Dominances and 0 Dominate Kines. But guess what? Despite the fact that I wish I had more, I still think the way White Wolf is doing things is fine! I have absolutely no problem with the status quo. Making sets available so easily would, IMHO, cheapen the value of the game. Others have already pointed out that trading would lose a great deal of value, thus the game would lose some of its valuable social factor. I don't collect sets myself but I know people that do (and lots of people on this newsgroup do as well). Completing a set takes a lot of time and hard work. And how many times do we read posts about how ecstatic and proud someone is because he *finally* completed his set of FN, SW, or whatever? Making sets readily available takes away the intrinsic value of forming one's own set. And even if you don't find set-collecting to be particularly fulfilling, I'm sure others do. And, among other things, taking away the satisfaction and fulfillment that others get from this just isn't right IMHO. Halcyan 2

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:49:22 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >What I do have is an enormous amount of commons. >Not as bad as my boxes upon boxes of M:tG wallpaper (or >basement ballast, depending on how you look at it), but >still enough to make anyone reflect on the waste of it all. A lot of this is in your mind. If you look at the production costs, I think you'd find that the major element is fixed costs like the art and consumable items like advertising, distribution and packaging. Surplus commons should be regarded as being as expendable as the foil wrapper from the booster - the wrapper was probably more expensive to print. What you're really buying in a booster is the rare. It sucks that you don't know what rare you're going to get but there is really no alternative. CCG that have tried other player-friendly pack-outs - Xxxenophile, INWO, Rolling Thunder - have all flopped. Just be glad that the game doesn't have ultra-rares too. Andrew

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 05:57:11 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: > >> And tons of CRAP, such as: >> >> Clan Loyalty, Conflict of Interests, Dartmoor, Faithful Servant, >> Incriminating Videotape, Of Noble Blood, The Treament... the list goes >> on and on. Not to mention all the clan-based cards that sucked; I >> mean, there's a REASON Final Nights had to be printed, and it was >> because the Giovanni and Ravnos were mondo-mega-weak if you tried to >> use just their Dark Sovereigns stuff. > >Faithful Servant and Incrim Video are not crap at all. ;) > >Try using th FS for a locked down pool generator. 2 FS, then go to >torpor, drop a Secure haven on the Vampire, a blood doll and your set. ...Then get burned by Vulnerability... =) Card has been making an appearance around here lately. Effective way to splash someone in torpor that you need gone without having to piss around with diablerie... and there's ALWAYS someone in torpor eventually. =) I dunno, though. One action (Faithful Servant while Daring the Dawn), two Master cards, and two pool for the Secure Haven... hmmm... sure, it's one pool per turn, but is it enough? =) Although I suppose I also see a lot of Arsons around these days, so it can be a real bitch to keep ANY location in play. Might have to give it a try, although it seems like a hair too many moving parts for me. Though a weenie Trap/UP deck would probably do just fine. >With Pier 13 the IV is just play nasty. Right Noal! Yeah, but when it was PRINTED the IV sucked. =) Pier 13 was an attempt to make equipment a hair more viable... and Creepshow Casino combined with it is yet ANOTHER way. Get the Pier at +2 stealth (who cares if you have to tap it in advance?), then get the rest of your equipment without wasting time. yay! But Black Cat needs to be the one who gets it. 1 pool per tape? Ow. >But there are a lot of weak cards in DS. I do admit that and even Noal >cannot make many of them into anything usefull. Yeah. I mean, it really WAS the weakest set =/ Ancient Hearts had some power issues ("oh, my god, that card does WHAT?"), but at least most of the stuff you got out of that wasn't TOTAL crap. -- Derek

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:04:28 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: > >> He shows us a way for White Wolf to not fleece us. Due to the way the >> world works, this *requires* them to not make a profit - it is simply >> untenable with a trading card game of the magnitude of V:TES. If you >> can show me a way to print individual cards on demand in volume at a >> competitive price..... > >You do it the same way the Ebook and pay music download industry does >this. And those are doing how well right now? =) >You pay a fee, download the file and print that out. Afix that to card >stock. Of course since each user has variable printer function, this >scenario needs to be slightly altered. > >So, pay fee. WW takes the basic card you purchased, prints that out on >a very nice laser printer on qualified card stock and mails this off to >you. Let me fix that one: WW takes the card, prints it out on an industrial-grade printing press (laser printers really just can't hack it, even the really high-grade $30k stuff), and mails it to you? Of course, industrial-grade presses aren't made to print things as small as cards. That's why they do cards in sheets. =/ >If WW wanted to go a step beyond, the could contract with a printer, >have the printer maintain the individual card templates, route all the >purchases to the printer and have those card shipped directly from the >printer. Oh my. The cost for this would be astronomical, and card costs would go through the roof. I'm sure that WW already subcontracts out to a printing company as it is, because just the cost of maintaining that kind of equipment is pretty damn high, and buying your own printer just for a CCG means you have to figure out a way to make back the cost of your printer, too... Now, trying to get card stock (expensive, remember Sabbat War?) and convincing the printer to make TONS of itsy-bitsy print runs for someone who wants 3 Disarms, 4 Relentless Pursuit, 2 Fire in the Blood, and 4 Twisting the Knife (trick deck! =) one week, and ANOTHER haphazard assortment the next...? I suspect the printing company would laugh in your face. James already mentioned "economies of scale", and there's a reason for it; it costs MONEY to set up and prepare for just -one- print run, swapping out paper, etc. These guys also have other customers, and it would take up so much of their time printing for WW that it would be self-defeating to THEIR business. The "print lots" model wasn't set up that way JUST to troll for collectors and gamer-fish. =) -- Derek As a total offtopic aside: Jason Bell, your posts aren't showing up at ALL on my (Earthlink's) news server. I see everyone's replies, but not your originals. Either you are posting in HTML (unlikely), or your domain has been blackholed by Earthlink (likely). It's either something about the mail.com address (very likely, as it's a major spam source), or possibly something about rr.com (also likely). You may wish to consider locating an alternate source to post from, even if it's only Google; once one major USENET server begins blackholing posts, the others generally follow suit, and eventually -nobody- will be seeing anything you write. The fact that other people are still seeing you indicates that your provider hasn't been put under a UDP, but that could change soon enough. -- Derek

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010715010931...@ng-fl1.aol.com... > What I stated earlier was that Constructed Starters > should only contain 1 new Vampire that isn't available > in booster packs. > > And in the case of Final Nights, should have been > the clan heads (like Ur-Shulgi) and give them a > Path card while you're at it. > > Of course, that's all moot now.. > These are great ideas Bernie! Especially the Paths... I own 300 Paths of Blood and Typhon, and I got one each of Paradox and Bones (I traded for a second Paradox.. my wife loves her Ravnos and I kinda dig my "Who needs a Breed Boon!" Ravnos deck from yesterday. Matt

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> Obviously, so we can communicate in an adult fashion using adult > >> words that have specific meaning. Are you an adult? Then speak > >> like an adult and use analogies that apply. > > > >I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, > > We are. > > Adults do not go round accusing a company attempting to make a profit to > pay its staff of fleecing customers or implying that it is acting like a > thief. Are you positive? The presumption that WotC does this, has done this, and continues to do this has not been challenged, and has on several occasions by several posters been used as a foil as to what it would look like if WW did behave in this way. Very few of us adults, if you so insist. > If you believe it is adult, polite, gentlemanly or acceptable to do so, > you are wrong. If you believe a company's behavior in marketing, manufacturing, distribution, or advertising are not to be assailed by adults in conversation, it is you who are wrong, and terribly so. If you think this thread has been tough on WW, you should see what they're writing and saying about Microsoft, Camel Cigarettes, Ford Motor Company and any number of other organizations whose behavior someone has found less than admirable. None of those critics adults, apparently. - Jason Bell

In message <qEH47.159218$Md.35...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> >I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, >> >> We are. >> >> Adults do not go round accusing a company attempting to make a profit to >> pay its staff of fleecing customers or implying that it is acting like a >> thief. > >Are you positive? Yes. Now please cease your trolling. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote > Making sets > readily available takes away the intrinsic value of forming one's own set. And > even if you don't find set-collecting to be particularly fulfilling, I'm sure > others do. And, among other things, taking away the satisfaction and > fulfillment that others get from this just isn't right IMHO. I appreciate your position, but WW has already made a subset of cards available outside of random distribution through the pre-constructed decks, and as far as I know there as been no outcry from people disappointed that the easily available Dreams (and any number of other rares) to complete their set broke their spirit of collecting. Just the opposite, there has been much voiced satisfaction with the inclusion of sought and difficult to obtain cards in predictable packaging. Perhaps a solution would be through timing. Sets (or some other non-random card delivery option) could be sold sometime after the pack and pre-constructed product has been made available, allowing those to indulge their desire to collect cards from random packs. For me, I've found that the resentment that comes from inequitable deck-constructing resources to be much more harmful to Deckmaster games than any loss of R-U-C distribution would cause. I would be pressed to even count the number of Magic players I know who quit because they could not compete with those who could drop $300-$400 every 4 months to keep themselves in this season's cards. I can sense the same thing develpong for Jyhad, but more slowly, as two of my more die-hard Jyhad friends missed the last two sets, and are reluctant to play. Or maybe Asheron's Call and Anarchy Online are to blame. - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > >What I do have is an enormous amount of commons. > >Not as bad as my boxes upon boxes of M:tG wallpaper (or > >basement ballast, depending on how you look at it), but > >still enough to make anyone reflect on the waste of it all. > > A lot of this is in your mind. If you look at the production costs, I > think you'd find that the major element is fixed costs like the art > and consumable items like advertising, distribution and packaging. > Surplus commons should be regarded as being as expendable as the foil > wrapper from the booster - the wrapper was probably more expensive to > print. What you're really buying in a booster is the rare. It sucks > that you don't know what rare you're going to get but there is really > no alternative. CCG that have tried other player-friendly pack-outs - > Xxxenophile, INWO, Rolling Thunder - have all flopped. I don't know the history of those games, but I would doubt that deviations from R-U-C random distribution was the major contributor to those games' demise. I mean the only one of those games I've even heard of is INWO, and I like the all-piece-included version of that game soooooooo much more than the TCG version. We have the main set and the expansion to that game here at the house, and we break it out every once in awhile when we have 5 or more people who want to be very angry at each other for a few hours. > Just be glad > that the game doesn't have ultra-rares too. I appreciate the sentiment, but again, I take little solace from the "it could be worse" points, even though I know it to be true. - Jason Bell

In message <tYH47.159349$Md.35...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I appreciate your position, but WW has already made a subset of >cards available outside of random distribution through the >pre-constructed decks, This is very different to printing complete sets or cards on demand. Pre-constructed starters is a comparatively common element of a CCG business model. Your loss-making proposal is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> >I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, > >> > >> We are. > >> > >> Adults do not go round accusing a company attempting to make a profit to > >> pay its staff of fleecing customers or implying that it is acting like a > >> thief. > > > >Are you positive? > > Yes. > > Now please cease your trolling. Again by decree. Very adult of you to snip the entire content of the post. - Jason Bell

In message <UfI47.159351$Md.35...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> writes >> Now please cease your trolling. > >Again by decree. Very adult of you to snip the entire content >of the post. I am not the one acting like a child and then claiming "I thought we were all adults." (NB: Your claim, not mine, paraphrased.) Your double-standards and hypocrisy are frightening. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > As a total offtopic aside: > > Jason Bell, your posts aren't showing up at ALL on my (Earthlink's) > news server. I see everyone's replies, but not your originals. > Either you are posting in HTML (unlikely), or your domain has been > blackholed by Earthlink (likely). It's either something about the > mail.com address (very likely, as it's a major spam source), or > possibly something about rr.com (also likely). > > You may wish to consider locating an alternate source to post from, > even if it's only Google; once one major USENET server begins > blackholing posts, the others generally follow suit, and eventually > -nobody- will be seeing anything you write. The fact that other > people are still seeing you indicates that your provider hasn't been > put under a UDP, but that could change soon enough. How's this? As a troubleshooting device, I've changed the e-mail address in the newsgroup properties. It would be nice to first try the easiest solution, especially since I may be too lazy to implement your other suggestions. It's awful sweet of you to point out this problem, I figured considering our exchanges, you'd just thank your lucky stars that your server has been spontaneously deleting my posts. - Jason Bell

In message <0ju5lt0k31jknhb1i...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >The fact that other >people are still seeing you indicates that your provider hasn't been >put under a UDP, but that could change soon enough. UDPs are very rarely invoked. Very. And UDPs are generally resolved quite quickly, as a result. IDPs are funnier. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >I stand by my stance that random R-U-C card distribution > >forces consumers buy cards that they neither want nor need. > > Selling packages (random or not, with different rarity levels > or not) of cards (even "factory sets") "forces" consumers to > buy cards that they neither want nor need. The only way to > avoid this is by selling singles, whereby the consumers buy > exactly the cards they want or need and nothing more. Of course you are right, but the current burden could be lessened as described by other posters: more focused packs (clan specific packs) or less commons in packs (if card stock is a costly input, as WotC insisted the last time they raised pack prices that I remember). And it could also be lessened by any other method of reducing uncertainty (which is rarely a good thing in economic transactions), such as the pre-constructed decks that already exist, and my suggestion being selling sets, or full sheets (2 of each C2) since that's probably easier. I do understand that some find the collection and trading of cards from random inputs to be an enjoyable pasttime itself. But the current situation is the worst and most wasteful from my point of view, where I would like the option to buy more cards from current or past sets, but dare not, due to the implied expense associated with buying pack after pack filled or nearly filled with cards I cannot use. Artificial scarcity may very well be the best way for WW and any Deckmaster producer to maximize profits, but it's a lousy way to serve customers, in my opinion. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<uFw47.90867$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > > > > So, do you believe that a pick-pocket must steal every item on > > > > > your person to have robbed you? > > > > > > > > Techinically, robbery construes violence upon one's person, so he > > > > could steal > > > > everything you owned and not have robbed you. All robbers are > > > > theives, but all theives are not robbers. Please restate your > > > > analogy. > > > > > > Why, so you can intentionally misconstrue it for some > > > other reason? > > > > Obviously, so we can communicate in an adult fashion using adult > > words that have specific meaning. Are you an adult? Then speak > > like an adult and use analogies that apply. > > I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, > which is why I cannot believe that your mind cannot track > the analogy as written. My point was that the analogy was poorly written and that you should come up with a more appropriate substitute. Perhaps one that used less emotionally charged language to carry a point that I do not feel that you clearly made. Analogies are double edged swords to use in any arguement because of their inherent flaws. Thus I presumed that you had > intentionally misconstrued the analogy, that you were > being intentionally obtuse. > Or perhaps you're one of those trolls who enjoys pouncing > on grammar and spelling, I cannot be sure. I am neither pouncing on grammer nor spelling, as these are mechanics. I was pouncing on meaning. Your analogy is an emotionally charged dud. > But either way, I stand by my response. > As you wish. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, JR. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<60x47.90937$ih.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > The problem with your preferences is that it makes impossible > > to print a 160 card set. Possibly if they printed a 52 card > > set then this would be possible. Unfortunantly, it would be > > an inventory nightmare for them to house and invest in an inventory > > that would only move the obviously powerful cards. It would bankrupt > > White Wolf. > > Yes, I understand the difficulties of selling singles, and accept > that there are very good reasons for WW to decline to do so. > I have yet to hear such good reasons against selling sets, > only some badly supported assertions about how it would > destroy all life as we know it (or something along those lines). Besides destroying all life as we know it :), Sets are notoriously hard to market, as they tend to destroy the value of your random open stock boosters. To market them as a set is like cutting your own throat. > WW already sells groups of cards explicitly by title, the > preconstructed clan decks. I like very much this opportunity > to buy the actual cards (I now know how much Dreams costs, > and where to go to get it), as opposed to the blind chance of > packs, and would like that opportunity on a full-set scale > (without getting the secondary market middle-men involved). Perhaps you have found your answer without even knowing it. If you buy the Pre-cons you are buying a set. You know what they contain and you can buy as many as you like at retail and receive cards that have a value over the price of the pre-con. If you want to own cards that exist outside of the pre-cons, then you gamble with buying a booster pack. > > > > I'd like another option, and I don't think it's > > > unreasonable to want one. > > > > If you were around a few years ago, then you would have had one. That > > option was to buy the cards dirt cheap. > > I was, and I did. I bought a positively indecent amount of Jyhad > at $5 per box. The sad truth, I still don't have nearly enough > Freak Drives, Kine Dominance (only owned 1! until a big V:tES buy > a few weeks ago), and any number of other rares and even some > uncommons. What I do have is an enormous amount of commons. > Not as bad as my boxes upon boxes of M:tG wallpaper (or > basement ballast, depending on how you look at it), but > still enough to make anyone reflect on the waste of it all. > Yes, but you must admit that the number of these ultra-rares has declined after they have added them to the pre-cons. Remember when a Taste of Vitae was nearly impossible to get. <snip economist part. I live to fleece people.:)> > > This is another economic feature: the upward stickiness > > of prices. > > Until the game crashes again, of course. > I hope very much that WW does not attempt to model > their business on the frenetic set release that WotC > does for Magic (3 new sets per year or so), and I wonder > if the tournament people will ever destroy their player > base with Type I / Type II distinctions that turned Magic > into the hollow shell driven by adolescents spending > their parents' money. Time will tell. Hopefully that will never happen. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <d2f8d37b.01071...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >Analogies are double edged swords to use >in any arguement because of their inherent flaws. Hence my (briefly seen) kill-file taken directly from a White Wolf product, back for one post only. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

Derek Ray wrote: > ...Then get burned by Vulnerability... =) > > Card has been making an appearance around here lately. Effective way > to splash someone in torpor that you need gone without having to piss > around with diablerie... and there's ALWAYS someone in torpor > eventually. =) every deck has its achillies heel. > I dunno, though. One action (Faithful Servant while Daring the Dawn), > two Master cards, and two pool for the Secure Haven... hmmm... sure, > it's one pool per turn, but is it enough? =) Although I suppose I > also see a lot of Arsons around these days, so it can be a real bitch > to keep ANY location in play. Might have to give it a try, although > it seems like a hair too many moving parts for me. Though a weenie > Trap/UP deck would probably do just fine. I was using another wall paper card to quickly get into torpor. Mummify. Worked great, but I never completed the forward momemtum aspect of the deck and hard a hard time takeing out anyone. > >With Pier 13 the IV is just play nasty. Right Noal! > > Yeah, but when it was PRINTED the IV sucked. =) Pier 13 was an > attempt to make equipment a hair more viable... and Creepshow Casino > combined with it is yet ANOTHER way. Get the Pier at +2 stealth (who > cares if you have to tap it in advance?), then get the rest of your > equipment without wasting time. yay! > > But Black Cat needs to be the one who gets it. 1 pool per tape? Ow. Thats what he was using. Great combo. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] And cards at 10$+ are? > Hence my use of the term "competitive price". With this, singles are > going to cost as much as buying singles on the second-hand market does > now, or close thereto, I would've thought. Anyhow, its just an idea to show up the concept. I never would expect this to actually work. But it could. Raille

In message <3B542BE6...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> which is going to be significantly more. Labour is not cheap. > >And cards at 10$+ are? Likely to be unworkable as an effective business model. >Anyhow, its just an idea to show up the concept. I never would expect >this to actually work. But it could. Let's assume it works out at 6 dollars for a card. A new groups of players need around 65 cards each for playable decks. That's (*scribbles* carry the two..... subtract the one) 390 dollars for each player! I am at a loss to see how this "could" work. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > He shows us a way for White Wolf to not fleece us. Due to the way the > > world works, this *requires* them to not make a profit - it is simply > > untenable with a trading card game of the magnitude of V:TES. If you > > can show me a way to print individual cards on demand in volume at a > > competitive price..... > > > > You do it the same way the Ebook and pay music download industry does > this. > > You pay a fee, download the file and print that out. Afix that to card > stock. Of course since each user has variable printer function, this > scenario needs to be slightly altered. > Thought about this a bit more since my last mail. A great idea for those who can't afford multiple boxes. However, the problem becomes that the file gets to easy to move about (1 person in a playgroup pays, everyone gets the file). Assuming this is the case, then this would be fine if you a) must have the official original card for tournaments (already a requirement) b) you wish to collect the actual cards, they would still be available. However, many people already make proxy cards for out of tournament play. This enables everyone to play with the cards, test decks, etc. without having to blow huge budgets on cards. A small fee to be able to print out the cards for fun play would be worth it, and we may even be able to increase the number of players out there Andy Setite ruler of Cambridge -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

James Coupe wrote: > Let's assume it works out at 6 dollars for a card. A new groups of > players need around 65 cards each for playable decks. That's > (*scribbles* carry the two..... subtract the one) 390 dollars for each > player! > > I am at a loss to see how this "could" work. Insert: Stupid rich people. Of course I should would not mind being one. Well the rich part at least. Raille

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > > >I stand by my stance that random R-U-C card distribution > > >forces consumers buy cards that they neither want nor need. > > > > Selling packages (random or not, with different rarity levels > > or not) of cards (even "factory sets") "forces" consumers to > > buy cards that they neither want nor need. The only way to > > avoid this is by selling singles, whereby the consumers buy > > exactly the cards they want or need and nothing more. > > Of course you are right, but the current burden could be > lessened as described by other posters: more focused packs > (clan specific packs) or less commons in packs (if card stock is > a costly input, as WotC insisted the last time they raised pack > prices that I remember). And it could also be lessened by any > other method of reducing uncertainty (which is rarely a good > thing in economic transactions), such as the pre-constructed > decks that already exist, and my suggestion being selling > sets, or full sheets (2 of each C2) since that's probably easier. The "uncertainty" has its charms though. The manufacturer sells more packs to folks like me who like to buy enough to hedge our bets. It encourages game interaction in the form of trading. I don't care for it but a lot of folks do. It's a deliberate disadvantage for the customer so the manufacturer can sell more packs, some of it leading to the waste you complain about. (As is/does the imbalance in commons to rares that also inspires your dissatisfaction.) The brutal truth is that CCG manufacturers do these things on purpose because they can and because they have to to make the game profitable enough to be a viable product. Customers accept these shenanigans because the problems presented to them in the form of creating collections are fun (for many, at least) to solve. By the way, another thing the uncertainty does is make to make the "limited" form of competition (sealed deck, draft, bubble leagues) possible. Another aspect that's not on the top of my list. But lots of folks really like that. > But the current situation is the worst and most wasteful from > my point of view, where I would like the option to buy more cards > from current or past sets, but dare not, due to the implied > expense associated with buying pack after pack filled or nearly > filled with cards I cannot use. Artificial scarcity may very well > be the best way for WW and any Deckmaster producer to maximize > profits, but it's a lousy way to serve customers, in my opinion. I've posted about this elsewhere. You need to think of this as part of price of the product, just exactly like the printed price on the pack of cards. White Wolf could do these things you suggest but might well need to jack up the price per card several fold to make enough money to keep the game going. The average person would rather have the randomness and waste. (Much though the waste is regrettable in terms of ecological considerations, IMO.) Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >I appreciate your position, but WW has already made a subset of > >cards available outside of random distribution through the > >pre-constructed decks, > > This is very different to printing complete sets or cards on demand. Yes, very different from printing cards on demand. I allow that such a policy would probably be very difficult to execute as a money-making venture. But no, not very different at all from printing complete sets (or more appropriately, full sheets). > Pre-constructed starters is a comparatively common element of a CCG > business model. Your loss-making proposal is not. Why is selling sets a "loss-making proposal?" - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> writes > >> Now please cease your trolling. > > > >Again by decree. Very adult of you to snip the entire content > >of the post. > > I am not the one acting like a child and then claiming "I thought we > were all adults." (NB: Your claim, not mine, paraphrased.) > > Your double-standards and hypocrisy are frightening. You're frightened that I've asked you to retain fuller context of what you're responding to, especially when you're insulting or dismissive? I find that odd. Again, you are entitled to claim whatever you like, but your claim does not make it true, particularly when almost everything you've claimed in this thread has been naked assertion (four more examples in your post above, plus one more in the original cited post, none supported, and all insulting). My advice is to consider how you are responding to ideas that you seem to strongly disagree with, why it is important to you to respond as you have, and whether there is a more constructive way you could address ideas that you think are wrong. I don't think I'm being unreasonable (occasonally frustrated perhaps), I've already conceded the impraticality of printing cards on demand due to comments from previous posters. But not surprisingly, comments that accuse me of being a troll, being childish, being a hypocrite, and having double standards don't go a long way to changing my mind about anything, and tend to disincline me towards reading your future comments in a favorable light. - Jason Bell

In message <4A%47.163978$Md.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> writes >> Your double-standards and hypocrisy are frightening. > >You're frightened that I've asked you to retain fuller context >of what you're responding to, especially when you're insulting >or dismissive? No, I'm frightened by your (I'll take you through this slowly) DOUBLE (meaning double) STANDARDS (meanings standards) and HYPOCRISY (meaning hypocrisy) Hope that helps. (FWIW, I'm also frightened by your spurious trolling, abject stupidity, inability to understand economics, desire to polarise issues which are not polar in nature and so forth.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > I assumed we were (for the most part) adults in this forum, > > which is why I cannot believe that your mind cannot track > > the analogy as written. > > My point was that the analogy was poorly written and that you should > come up with a more appropriate substitute. Perhaps one that used > less emotionally charged language to carry a point that I do not feel > that you clearly made. Analogies are double edged swords to use > in any arguement because of their inherent flaws. Hmm, well then I took your post the wrong way. My assumption was that you chose not to track the analogy because, though you knew "thieved" was the correct vocabulary word though "robbed" was used, you preferred to address that grammar of the analogy instead of its content. If your point was one where you objected to the analogy because of an implication you felt it put on the original subject, that's a whole 'nother issue. I brought out that analogy, because another poster had insisted that since WW's packaging and marketing behavior were not as bad as he could conceive, there were no problems with that behavior. I suppose I should have stuck strictly with the carnival analogies, as I felt those were tracking pretty well to my arguments. > > But either way, I stand by my response. > > As you wish. I'll stand by my statements when attacked for grammar purposes (as I had figured you had), but I'm happy to reconsider based on thoughtful objections. - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > Besides destroying all life as we know it :), Sets are notoriously hard > to market, as they tend to destroy the value of your random open stock > boosters. To market them as a set is like cutting your own throat. Of course you mean that the marketing of sets is problemmatic if they depress demand for boosters. If they do this, it would have to be because their marketing (the sets) was very easy and sold very well. But I take your point. Unfortunately, the implication behind that point is not favorable to WW or any Deckmaster R-U-C company, and very nearly concedes the charge that random R-U-C is selling people cards that they do not want and would not buy if given another option. So, if the above situation is true and unavoidable, a solution might be to market sets some time after the original release of the expansion. That would lessen any expected dip in booster demand, as demand would have fallen off by then anyway, and actually pick up demand for that set's cards overall. Can you think of any Jyhad or Vampire expansion you would not buy at least one set of if offered at a price anywhere in the neighborhood of booster price * [set size/booster size]? Let's call it, for argument's sake, $100 for a 400 card set, $50 for the smaller expansions. Hmm, so maybe I wouldn't buy the original Jyhad at that clip, or maybe just one, to have whatever cool packaging would be involved. This would definitely stabilize the secondary market (as cards known to be included in pre-con decks have). > Perhaps you have found your answer without even knowing it. > If you buy the Pre-cons you are buying a set. You know what > they contain and you can buy as many as you like at retail > and receive cards that have a value over the price of the > pre-con. If you want to own cards that exist outside of the > pre-cons, then you gamble with buying a booster pack. So there you go, WW already has its feet wet in set-selling, so why not go further? Do they have marketing data telling them that pre-con's have depressed overall card sales? I doubt it, since the pre-con product is available for at least 2 expansions now. > Yes, but you must admit that the number of these ultra-rares has > declined after they have added them to the pre-cons. Remember > when a Taste of Vitae was nearly impossible to get. Actually I don't, I have always had more than my share of that one. But I do take your point. But try to take mine for the cards that I want to play, but haven't been included in pre-con "sets." > <snip economist part. I live to fleece people.:)> > > > > This is another economic feature: the upward stickiness > > > of prices. > > > > Until the game crashes again, of course. > > I hope very much that WW does not attempt to model > > their business on the frenetic set release that WotC > > does for Magic (3 new sets per year or so), and I wonder > > if the tournament people will ever destroy their player > > base with Type I / Type II distinctions that turned Magic > > into the hollow shell driven by adolescents spending > > their parents' money. Time will tell. > > Hopefully that will never happen. I strongly believe that it will happen, and such a crash may be inherent in the R-U-C product model. Artificial scarcity pushes up demand parallel with additional players pushing up demand. When interest in the game falls off, the additional player portion of demand drops, pushing more cards into secondary markets and driving prices for available product down, depressing the scarcity portion, and the bubble burts. This in itself may be a strong argument against selling sets, since you're damaging your own scarcity engine, but to use this argument against selling sets really does give away the other argument that we're being fleeced. - Jason Bell

Maybe it's time for you fellows to take this off the newsgroup to hash things out. As long as you're both making constructive points of view, I'm interested. At the point that name calling begins (no matter how subtle) it's time to mail each other directly. Thanks for playing, now have a smoothie (it's worth 7 points!) Bernie

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >> which is going to be significantly more. Labour is not cheap. > > > >And cards at 10$+ are? > > Likely to be unworkable as an effective business model. > > >Anyhow, its just an idea to show up the concept. I never would expect > >this to actually work. But it could. > > Let's assume it works out at 6 dollars for a card. A new groups of > players need around 65 cards each for playable decks. That's > (*scribbles* carry the two..... subtract the one) 390 dollars for each > player! > > I am at a loss to see how this "could" work. I don't know about that. First, consider that this need not exist in a vacuum, the collection's backbone could still be created by buying packaged product, and only the missing cards that you wanted to play but could not get otherwise would be ordered on demand. I don't know if this would make the buy in $390 or more or less, but that's how it could go. Second, I don't know about you, but my buy-in for this game currently stands at a far sight over $390 for this one player, and I'd assume the same is true for most of you other geeks reading this post. I'm with Raille here, I doubt the system as described would work either, but I doubt it would fail because you couldn't find people who would pay $6 a pop for Freak Drives or some other difficult rare to make a crazy deck. - Jason Bell

> > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> As a total offtopic aside: >> >> Jason Bell, your posts aren't showing up at ALL on my (Earthlink's) >> news server. I see everyone's replies, but not your originals. >> Either you are posting in HTML (unlikely), or your domain has been >> blackholed by Earthlink (likely). It's either something about the >> mail.com address (very likely, as it's a major spam source), or >> possibly something about rr.com (also likely). >> >> You may wish to consider locating an alternate source to post from, >> even if it's only Google; once one major USENET server begins >> blackholing posts, the others generally follow suit, and eventually >> -nobody- will be seeing anything you write. The fact that other >> people are still seeing you indicates that your provider hasn't been >> put under a UDP, but that could change soon enough. > > How's this? As a troubleshooting device, I've changed the > e-mail address in the newsgroup properties. It would be > nice to first try the easiest solution, especially since > I may be too lazy to implement your other suggestions. More importantly, can Derek read * this * post? (since if it's the domain you're actually coming from being RTBHed, he'll never get your message, as before.) > > It's awful sweet of you to point out this problem, > I figured considering our exchanges, you'd just > thank your lucky stars that your server has been > spontaneously deleting my posts. USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. -- Pat Ricochet See Dick hit on the con chicks. Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta See Dick get shot down in flames. Shoot, shoot, flames. Dick is a fanboy.

In message <B77A12B8.58C4%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. You mean that all my flirting is to waste? Derek, hun, say it ain't so! [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I began filtering out his messages long ago.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:05:14 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> How's this? As a troubleshooting device, I've changed the >> e-mail address in the newsgroup properties. It would be >> nice to first try the easiest solution, especially since >> I may be too lazy to implement your other suggestions. > > More importantly, can Derek read > >* this * > > post? (since if it's the domain you're actually coming from being >RTBHed, he'll never get your message, as before.) To answer that question, no, I CANNOT read that post. I can't read -any- of them, as a matter of fact, although I've seen James' half of the back-and-forth. I was also quite unaware that this response even existed until Pat replied. (thanks pat!) To answer the above questions; it was a nice thought, but it didn't work. After looking a bit more closely at the headers in some of your other posts, you're connecting via Road Runner, which is almost certainly the culprit... *.rr.com has been flooding binary (and other) groups pretty consistently for some time now with incomplete movie .VCDs that have been chopped up into .RARs and then broken - or attempts at complete movies, proving that script kiddies will warez anything, although I have no sympathy for Hollywood. Earthlink probably decided its news server was running too slow with all the bullshit traffic, and killed Road Runner entirely. You can be as lazy as you want, but it seems likely that more and more servers are going to shoot Road Runner, at least until they get busy and nuke their script kiddies. @home.com nearly got COMPLETELY blackholed a couple years back with everyone and their new cable modem spamming in the alt.binaries.warez.warez.warez groups. >> It's awful sweet of you to point out this problem, >> I figured considering our exchanges, you'd just >> thank your lucky stars that your server has been >> spontaneously deleting my posts. No, no, no. I have a perfectly good killfile in Agent, and if I ever need it, I know right where all the buttons are and what order to push them in. But I generally reserve the killfile for pr0n spam, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, and people whose entire response consists of something like "yah well f00k u!!! 3y3 will kick ur a$$ at this game and id k1ck ur azz in pers0n too!". > USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. "Correct." =) -- Derek

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:11:51 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <B77A12B8.58C4%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >> USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >>to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. > >You mean that all my flirting is to waste? > >Derek, hun, say it ain't so! Sorry, James, but I've just been using you. My heart truly belongs to Reyda. =) -- Derek

In message <qv79ltgur4ul9bf90...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Sorry, James, but I've just been using you. My heart truly belongs to >Reyda. :( -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

>> USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >> to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. > > I began filtering out his messages long ago. Ah. No wonder you think he'd be happy to have your posts not show, then. Well, as one last plug before you killfile me, as well, you might want to read this: ---Begin Reposted Post: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:05:14 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> How's this? As a troubleshooting device, I've changed the >> e-mail address in the newsgroup properties. It would be >> nice to first try the easiest solution, especially since >> I may be too lazy to implement your other suggestions. > > More importantly, can Derek read > >* this * > > post? (since if it's the domain you're actually coming from being >RTBHed, he'll never get your message, as before.) To answer that question, no, I CANNOT read that post. I can't read -any- of them, as a matter of fact, although I've seen James' half of the back-and-forth. I was also quite unaware that this response even existed until Pat replied. (thanks pat!) To answer the above questions; it was a nice thought, but it didn't work. After looking a bit more closely at the headers in some of your other posts, you're connecting via Road Runner, which is almost certainly the culprit... *.rr.com has been flooding binary (and other) groups pretty consistently for some time now with incomplete movie .VCDs that have been chopped up into .RARs and then broken - or attempts at complete movies, proving that script kiddies will warez anything, although I have no sympathy for Hollywood. Earthlink probably decided its news server was running too slow with all the bullshit traffic, and killed Road Runner entirely. You can be as lazy as you want, but it seems likely that more and more servers are going to shoot Road Runner, at least until they get busy and nuke their script kiddies. @home.com nearly got COMPLETELY blackholed a couple years back with everyone and their new cable modem spamming in the alt.binaries.warez.warez.warez groups. >> It's awful sweet of you to point out this problem, >> I figured considering our exchanges, you'd just >> thank your lucky stars that your server has been >> spontaneously deleting my posts. No, no, no. I have a perfectly good killfile in Agent, and if I ever need it, I know right where all the buttons are and what order to push them in. But I generally reserve the killfile for pr0n spam, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, and people whose entire response consists of something like "yah well f00k u!!! 3y3 will kick ur a$$ at this game and id k1ck ur azz in pers0n too!". > USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. "Correct." =) -- Derek ----End Reposted Post I supposed I could have just emailed you directly, but for amusement, I'd toss it in for anyone ELSE who may have killfiled Derek, as well. Not too many, I'd guess. Most people here just keep arguing or ignore THAT thread, since everyone has something worth saying at some time. =) -- Pat Ricochet See Dick hit on the con chicks. Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta See Dick get shot down in flames. Shoot, shoot, flames. Dick is a fanboy.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:10:07 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> USENET is a toy for Derek; it has no "real-world" affect on his attitude >>> to anyone. Some of his "victims" care, but he sure doesn't. >> >> I began filtering out his messages long ago. > > Ah. No wonder you think he'd be happy to have your posts not show, >then. > Well, as one last plug before you killfile me, as well, you might want >to read this: Pat? Jack Crow and Jason Bell are different people. =) If Jason had killfiled me, he wouldn't have been able to write the message you 'reposted' so it would make it to my news server, because he wouldn't have seen MY post. =) > I supposed I could have just emailed you directly, but for amusement, >I'd toss it in for anyone ELSE who may have killfiled Derek, as well. Not >too many, I'd guess. Most people here just keep arguing or ignore THAT >thread, since everyone has something worth saying at some time. =) Not to mention that I suspect it can be amusing to watch if you're not the target du jour. And it's absolutely NOT amusing to only watch half of it (try reading NOTHING but James Coupe's posts in that back-and-forth exchange they just had, and you'll understand, because that's all I've seen). Although you HAVE hit on the reason I never killfile anyone except obvious spammers -or- skr1pt k1ddi3z... you never know when you might agree with them, or they might actually say something useful. Oddly enough, Andrew Davidson and I have actually agreed on a couple things recently, which would normally be a symbol for the heavens to open and lightning to strike the cat. But the cat is frizz-less, and does not walk with a twitch yet... Wait til GenCon. =) -- Derek

Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> wrote a whole lot in this thread paraphrased - "I think the game will crash again because the people in charge are idiots that haven't learned from Magic's problems (tournament scene), just its economic model." He goes on to say: > I strongly believe that it will happen, and such a crash > may be inherent in the R-U-C product model. > Artificial scarcity pushes up demand parallel with > additional players pushing up demand. > When interest in the game falls off, the additional player portion > of demand drops, pushing more cards into secondary > markets and driving prices for available product down, > depressing the scarcity portion, and the bubble burts. What secondary market? There are three people selling singles on the net for VTES at this time. Errol Trepanier (Immortal Grapple Cards http://www.thelasombra.com/ImmortalGrappleCards.htm) Bob & Joyce Trotter (Sengir Cards http://www.sengir.com) Me (http://www.TheLasombra.com/cardtrader.htm) Ebay is not a secondary market. Ebay is the carnival desperate to fleece you. Take a look at some of the higher priced "collectibles" some time. ie Marianna Gilbert for $70 and up Notice how one account keeps pushing the price higher and higher. Notice how that account never wins an auction. Its called bidding on your own auction and isn't supposed to happen, but is a very common practice. This is fleecing. > This in itself may be a strong argument against selling > sets, since you're damaging your own scarcity engine, > but to use this argument against selling sets really > does give away the other argument that we're > being fleeced. Illuminati: New World Order was one of the first 5-6 collectible card games on the market. The offered a Factory Set (included one of each card and some blank cards). I will tell you that it killed booster sales completely in Seattle (where I was at the time). This was more a function of poor rules than a distribution argument, but there is no reason for someone who only collects the cards to buy anything other than a pre-packaged set. There are a huge number of those for this game. Some because they can no longer find other players, some because they simply like the card art. Now, take any Deckmaster type of game. You are promised a given number of rares, and specific number of uncommons, and a specific number of commons. This is exactly what you get when you buy either a booster or a starter. If you are looking for something else, you need to utilize the "secondary" card market. The Trotters haven't had to buy any more Sabbat War or Final Nights since their initial orders because there is NO DEMAND. There is, however, quite a bit of foolishness going on with Ebay at any given time in any collectibles category. When sets are for sale on Ebay (and not by someone out to fleece you), they have never come anywhere close to the price you mentioned, ie $100 for a VTES set. The prices have been much closer to $60-70. I don't see how producing a set and selling it for less than the price of a box of boosters can ever help a company make money. Notice that the prices of the boosters are set (and raised) by the price of paper, not by the popularity of the game (in general). Please redifine your use of the term "secondary" market, and describe how the presence of one is anything but good for the game. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@maildot.com> wrote in message news:<68057.164017$Md.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > Besides destroying all life as we know it :), Sets are notoriously hard > > to market, as they tend to destroy the value of your random open stock > > boosters. To market them as a set is like cutting your own throat. > > Of course you mean that the marketing of sets is problemmatic > if they depress demand for boosters. If they do this, it would > have to be because their marketing (the sets) was very easy > and sold very well. But I take your point. Unfortunately, > the implication behind that point is not favorable to WW or > any Deckmaster R-U-C company, and very nearly concedes > the charge that random R-U-C is selling people cards that > they do not want and would not buy if given another option. Okay, now you are using subjective values in an objective arguement. Please define: 1)cards that people do not want. 2)what is the implication behind this point. for the purposes of this arguement. Peoples tastes vary. Such is the very nature of marketing. You market to groups of consumers with similar tastes. You assume that the marketing of sets goes very well. Your assumption may or may not be correct. Please support with historical data. There is a distict possibility that the marketing of sets will not sell enough sets to pay for the expense of manufacturing and collating of cards for the sets, while at the same time depressing the demand for random boosters to the point that they are not profitable as well. > So there you go, WW already has its feet wet in set-selling, > so why not go further?\ For Many possible reasons. 1) depression of demand for boosters. (see above) 2) increased costs of production. 3) marginal increase in utility to players who vastly outnumber collectors 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Do they have marketing data > telling them that pre-con's have depressed overall card > sales? I don't know, but my experience is that such data would probably only be found at Hasbro and Marketing Companies who specialize in the TCG Market. Such information would be both valuable and expensive to gather. Probably more costly to aquire than the potential payoff. Remember this is business, so the risk vs. reward scenario is always prominant in the entreprenure's mind. I doubt it, since the pre-con product is available for > at least 2 expansions now. why do you doubt it? Is this a gut feeling or a definitive train of logic that you could perhaps define. > > Yes, but you must admit that the number of these ultra-rares has > > declined after they have added them to the pre-cons. Remember > > when a Taste of Vitae was nearly impossible to get. > > Actually I don't, I have always had more than my share of > that one. But I do take your point. But try to take mine for > the cards that I want to play, but haven't been included > in pre-con "sets." > > > <snip economist part. I live to fleece people.:)> > > > > > This is another economic feature: the upward stickiness > > > > of prices. > > > > > > Until the game crashes again, of course. > > > I hope very much that WW does not attempt to model > > > their business on the frenetic set release that WotC > > > does for Magic (3 new sets per year or so), and I wonder > > > if the tournament people will ever destroy their player > > > base with Type I / Type II distinctions that turned Magic > > > into the hollow shell driven by adolescents spending > > > their parents' money. Time will tell. > > > > Hopefully that will never happen. > > I strongly believe that it will happen, and such a crash > may be inherent in the R-U-C product model. > Artificial scarcity pushes up demand parallel with > additional players pushing up demand. When interest > in the game falls off, the additional player portion > of demand drops, pushing more cards into secondary > markets and driving prices for available product down, > depressing the scarcity portion, and the bubble burts. > > This in itself may be a strong argument against selling > sets, since you're damaging your own scarcity engine, > but to use this argument against selling sets really > does give away the other argument that we're > being fleeced. Jason, this is nice exposition, and this is the kind of fuzzy logic that leads to Dictatorial Rebelions taking over peaceful Democratic Nations. Please connect the engine to the caboose of this logic train. Why are we being fleeced again? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <d2f8d37b.01071...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >Why are we being fleeced >again? Because White Wolf are MAKING US BUY CARDS! This is evil. I am beginning to think Ryan S. Dancey was right about this game. It's all evil. First vampires, now capitalism. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D (Standard disclaimers apply.) EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> writes > >> Your double-standards and hypocrisy are frightening. > > > >You're frightened that I've asked you to retain fuller context > >of what you're responding to, especially when you're insulting > >or dismissive? > > No, I'm frightened by your (I'll take you through this slowly) > > DOUBLE (meaning double) > STANDARDS (meanings standards) > > and > > HYPOCRISY (meaning hypocrisy) > > Hope that helps. Actually, it doesn't, not even a little bit. Presumably my "DOUBLE STANDARDS" and "HYPOCRISY" are demonstrated in some way from my post (which you again deleted), or else you are just patently asserting them with no reason or justification). If they are so demonstrated, you must be frightened as I described, or have no basis for your claims whatever. Oh, right. > (FWIW, I'm also frightened by your spurious trolling, abject stupidity, > inability to understand economics, desire to polarise issues which are > not polar in nature and so forth.) Who exactly is polarizing this issue with inflammatory, insulting, and dismissive assertions? Right, that would be you. By the way, thanks for four more unsupported insulting assertions, plus the implication of more (though it is not clear whether the "so forth" ones are insulting, but I suspect they would be). - Jason Bell

In message <Mg757.165181$Md.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> writes >> Hope that helps. > >Actually, it doesn't, not even a little bit. English 101 is down the hall. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

But James, which version of English are we talking about?? Does English 101 use which version of the following: Color or Colour Sorry, couldn't help myself.. Bernie >>> Hope that helps. >> >>Actually, it doesn't, not even a little bit. > >English 101 is down the hall. > >-- >James Coupe >She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled >faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." So she gets a small salad.. Whatever..

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> wrote a whole lot in this thread > paraphrased - "I think the game will crash again because the people in > charge are idiots that haven't learned from Magic's problems (tournament > scene), just its economic model." I did not mean to imply all that is paraphrased above. I did not mean to claim people at WW were idiots, I was merely continuing a thread discussing possible reasons in favor and against various ways to merchandise Vampire cards. For all I know, WW may be a clan of evil geniuses desperate to claw all my money away from me by printing a great game but making the pieces difficult to obtain, or they may be corporate geniuses who infallably know bad things will happen if they deviate from standard product distribution schemes. I think all these possibilities are relatively independent of whether the game will eventually crash, but they may affect the timing. It seems to me obvious that you cannot keep printing cards forever expecting people to keep buying them, especially when the marketing involves imposing scarcity, unless you continue to produce more and more powerful cards, at which time another problem arises, which destroys the game from the other side. > He goes on to say: > > > I strongly believe that it will happen, and such a crash > > may be inherent in the R-U-C product model. > > Artificial scarcity pushes up demand parallel with > > additional players pushing up demand. > > When interest in the game falls off, the additional player portion > > of demand drops, pushing more cards into secondary > > markets and driving prices for available product down, > > depressing the scarcity portion, and the bubble burts. > > What secondary market? > > There are three people selling singles on the net for VTES at this time. I'm told there is a great deal of selling on E-Bay, and I understand that there is a newsgroup dedicated to the selling of these cards (haven't subscribed). Smaller markets for singles can be found at various retail outlets that carry V:tES product. My definition of the secondary market is everyone who sells cards outside of the packaging. That's right, if you sell a card to your roommate for a dollar, you're part of the secondary market, though if you trade him for another card, I suppose you are not, for this definition. The primary market is the sales in the product as sold by WW: Packs, starters, and boxes of both, at retail price or at discounts from distributors. > Ebay is not a secondary market. > > Ebay is the carnival desperate to fleece you. I consider it part of the secondary market. Whether the rest is true may be a good reason to avoid that market, but nonetheless. > Take a look at some of the higher priced "collectibles" some time. ie > Marianna Gilbert for $70 and up > Notice how one account keeps pushing the price higher and higher. You may be right, but this phenomenon itself is a function of how E-Bay takes bids. If I really want an item at auction, I give E-Bay a very high reserve price, and if my reserve price is eventually above the winning price, my name will always be the name with the high bid, even as other bidders push the price up closer to my reserve price. > Notice how that account never wins an auction. If both these things are true, then I just don't know what's going on there, and you may be right. > Its called bidding on your own auction and isn't supposed to happen, > but is a very common practice. > > This is fleecing. Maybe, but it's also called garden variety fraud. It's also very difficult to bid up your own auction without accidentally winning it, and thereby being unable to sell the card to someone who bid an acceptable amount, plus owing E-Bay the fee associated with the sale to yourself. Or maybe I'm missing something important about what happens then the winning bidder "backs out" of a sale. > > This in itself may be a strong argument against selling > > sets, since you're damaging your own scarcity engine, > > but to use this argument against selling sets really > > does give away the other argument that we're > > being fleeced. > > Illuminati: New World Order was one of the first 5-6 collectible card games > on the market. > The offered a Factory Set (included one of each card and some blank cards). > > I will tell you that it killed booster sales completely in Seattle (where I > was at the time). That is useful information for this discussion, and I thank you for offering it. My understanding of INWO's problems were in the area of degeneracy and game balance. Plus, there was another way to play Illuminati, which is a ton of fun and much better conceived than the TCG. By the way, how were booster sales of INWO at the time, and do you think the set offering increased total sales or not? > This was more a function of poor rules than a distribution argument, but > there > is no reason for someone who only collects the cards to buy anything other > than > a pre-packaged set. There are a huge number of those for this game. > Some because they can no longer find other players, some because they simply > like the card art. I understand the argument, and the solution I'm currently trying to discuss (between all-out flames directed at me for having the temerity to criticize WW and the random packaging model of card sales) involves delaying set availability until the boosters have been on the market for some period of time. So for the argument, I'm accepting the hypothesis that set offerings depress the sales of other product (which seems a bit of a no-brainer, since a portion of total demand must be split by the new product. I imagine the pre-con decks do the same thing, I know they reduced the number of boosters I bought, though probably did not reduce my total purchase), and envisioning a double bump in the sales curve for a set's sales overall, one for the initial release, and another when sets are available. > Now, take any Deckmaster type of game. > > You are promised a given number of rares, and specific number of uncommons, > and a specific number of commons. > > This is exactly what you get when you buy either a booster or a starter. Excepting the occasional mis-sort (we all remember the odd Jyhad starter with rares as far as the eye could see). By the way, I don't believe any Deckmaster pack has ever guaranteed the rarity sorting of its contents anywhere on its packaging. In the case of a Final Nights booster, you receive exactly what is offered: "Each booster pack contains 11 cards." Ancient Hearts: "12 Tradable Game Cards" > If you are looking for something else, you need to utilize the "secondary" > card market. > > The Trotters haven't had to buy any more Sabbat War or Final Nights since > their initial orders because there is NO DEMAND. There is, however, quite a > bit of foolishness going on with Ebay at any given time in any collectibles > category. Well, then I'd better get over there, as there are quite a few Sabbat War and Final Nights cards I really want, but am not willing to wade through tons of the cards I already have plenty of. But think how exciting it would be if I could patronize WW directly for the demand I have for their merchandise. > When sets are for sale on Ebay (and not by someone out to fleece you), they > have never come anywhere close to the price you mentioned, ie $100 for a > VTES set. The prices have been much closer to $60-70. I don't see how > producing a set and selling it for less than the price of a box of boosters > can ever help a company make money. Notice that the prices of the boosters > are set (and raised) by the price of paper, not by the popularity of the > game (in general). I wasn't trying to produce an exact price point, I was merely putting forth a back-of-the-napkin number for discussion purposes, and I hoped to err on the high side to avoid a certain kind of criticism. But make your point plain, do you beleive that sets would not sell, or that the selling would depress the booster market? I can't imagine how it could be both. > Please redifine your use of the term "secondary" market, and describe how > the presence of one is anything but good for the game. I never claimed otherwise, and I believe that the secondary market is vital for filling demand that the card producers seem unwilling to do. My only claim vis-a-vis the secondary market is that set selling would stabilize the market prices for singles, which is a good thing. I assume you must agree, considering your blasts of E-Bay auctions. - Jason Bell P.S, Thanks for the reasonable post.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > This is evil. I am beginning to think Ryan S. Dancey was right about > this game. It's all evil. First vampires, now capitalism. I'm curious what it was that Mr. Dancey originally said about this game... I had heard it was something along the lines of objecting to the vampire 'theme'. Does anyone have any more information on this? Cheers, WES

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:22:06 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <d2f8d37b.01071...@posting.google.com>, XZealot ><X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >>Why are we being fleeced >>again? > >Because White Wolf are MAKING US BUY CARDS! > >This is evil. I am beginning to think Ryan S. Dancey was right about >this game. It's all evil. First vampires, now capitalism. Let's all become hippies and go live on a commune. Then I can have both you AND Reyda! -- Derek ...In all seriousness, do you want my REAL opinion on whether or not we're being fleeced? I don't care, you're all getting it anyway. IT'S A FUCKING CARD GAME. A FUCKING GAME, PEOPLE. Where V:TES ranks in your "necessities" of life should be RIGHT at the bottom, right after "air-freshener kitty litter" and right before "soap on a rope". "Food" and "Rent" shouldn't be in the same ROOM with V:TES, and we won't even discuss "Really Good Scotch". This means that under no circumstances should you EVER be purchasing cards with anything other than "Ridiculously Disposable Income". If you are NOT following this guideline, you need a serious priority check on yourself, preferably with an official LART or other suitable clue-by-four. Now, forgive me for holding this bourgeois capitalist attitude, but if you have any amount of RDI, its ENTIRE PURPOSE is to be WASTED in some form or fashion, or otherwise thrown back into the marketplace, where it can generate more wealth. The only other thing you can do with RDI, besides SPEND it (wastefully if possible) or INVEST it (turning it into non-disposable income), is STUFF IT IN YOUR MATTRESS AND SLEEP ON IT. And if you DO put it in your mattress, you're a damned moron for a number of different reasons. So let's see... we're being fleeced out of money that we were going to waste on something ANYWAY? I'm sorry, no. Toss aside all the dictionary definitions, toss aside all the random assorted semantic bullshit that has flown back and forth; if you were going to blow the money ANYWAY, it doesn't MATTER what you blow it on. Nobody held a gun to your head and said "Buy V:TES!" The only thing that matters is if after spending the money, you enjoyed the result. That's what disposable income is, man, it's there to be DISPOSED OF. And if you bought cards and DIDN'T enjoy the result, I'm sorry, and I hope you have better luck with your next waste of money. But frankly, every last one of you DID enjoy your cards to some degree or other. Some of you probably froliced with them, inhaling the new-card smell... some of you were more subdued, i'm sure. But yes, ALL of you enjoyed the purchase. All of you. Or you wouldn't be here on this group, and you wouldn't GIVE a shit about V:TES. Have any of us been fleeced? NO. Entertainment cannot be measured in a pint jar, nor can a price be set on it. This is why front-row concert tickets sell for hideously expensive amounts of money now; because people get sufficient entertainment out of it to make it worth their time to BUY the damn things in the first place, and because despite the expensive price, the concerts STILL SELL OUT. Are we being fleeced for concert tickets by Ticketmaster? NO. If we REALLY objected to Ticketmaster's prices, we just wouldn't GO, because it's; guess what, DISPOSABLE INCOME. We would simply dispose of it somewhere else that gave us more entertainment at what we thought was a reasonable price. That's all there is to it. You can fling numbers around, and you can debate the meanings of the words until the cows come home, and even until the cows wake up with hangovers the next morning... but it's just plain not possible to be ripped off on something that's a total waste of money anyway. And yes... it IS a total waste of money. It's one of the more fun wastes I can put my finger on, but it is a TOTAL waste of money. The only people fleecing us are we ourselves. We choose to buy the product. We open up our OWN wallets and purses, without having our arms twisted behind us, and lay out money for cards. We know exactly what we're getting into when we buy the product, and we SOLD OUT two sets of Sabbat War. Clearly we are not dissatisfied; and clearly we are not being fleeced. Enough said, already. If you're that pissed at White Wolf because they won't sell you a set, please fuck off and go play Doomtown -- because unless I'm mistaken, its makers WILL sell you a set right now. Of course, there's a catch to it. -- Derek

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:57:06 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >It seems to me obvious that you >cannot keep printing cards forever expecting people >to keep buying them, especially when the marketing >involves imposing scarcity, unless you continue to >produce more and more powerful cards, at which time >another problem arises, which destroys the game from >the other side. Th usual model is to rotate cards out of play in some manner. Magic has explicit set rotation. L5R has its storyline formats. Decipher starts against with a fresh game on the same subject (Stars Wars, Young Jedi, Jedi Knights). Vampire hasn't yet reached this point but here's an interesting snippet from Dave Wiiliams, the AEG designer, apropos L5R Gold edition (which has changed that game's card backs at the behest of the US Olympic committee). >Excuse me, but I quit playing Vampire when I was told that I couldn't >use my Jyhad cards in tournaments any more. That may have changed >since then, but you can't tell me that it didn't happen. Doomtown is now being terminated by AEG. One interesting detail was the format of their last set. This was produced as a fixed set of ~200 cards in a useful card box for $50. What's interesting is that I'm fairly sure that they did it this way to cut costs - no sorting, no collation, no starters, no booster wrappers. They expected it to sell mainly to the afficionados. I certainly liked it and now have 11 sets. If you don't like being fleeced then put your money where your mouth is and buy CCGs only in fixed format - fixed starters for Final Nights, fixed starters for Firestorm, the fixed sets and starters for Doomtown, the One With Everything set for INWO, etc. Of course, you'll miss out out on all those VTES rares but you don't need them, right? Andrew

In message <mb9altof5dss3kg4o...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Let's all become hippies and go live on a commune. > >Then I can have both you AND Reyda! I've said it before and I'll say it again: Aye Carumba! -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010718001846...@ng-cs1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >>She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled >>faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." > >So she gets a small salad.. Whatever.. Full quote, takes place at an informal dinner party, Russian Hill, San Francisco: Mrs Madrigal winked at Mary Ann. "You're being awfully quiet." "I'm not sure I..." "What's /your/ favourite year?" "I don't think I have one." "Mine's 1987," said Mrs Madrigal. "I'll be sixty-five or so... I can collect social security and stash away enough to buy a small Greek island." She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <9j34m...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >I'm curious what it was that Mr. Dancey originally said about this game... I >had heard it was something along the lines of objecting to the vampire >'theme'. > >Does anyone have any more information on this? (I can dig out more informative and direct quotes if people want.) Basically, it boiled down to the fact that in Jyhad you play bad guys. Vampires are inherently bad and evil. So it's inappropriate for him to like it. Playing bad guys == wrong. When it was pointed out that he was heavily involved with games that depicted and glorified ritual suicide [Lo5R], along with killing a playground full of school-children [Rage], as things done by the player, he never responded in public that I saw. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mb9altof5dss3kg4o...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] i recently listened a What To Do With Your Money programme on the wireless. If you had had a few thousand GBP in the 1920s the OVERWHELMINGLY most sensible thing you could have done with it was to stick it in your mattress and sleep on it. This is because collectors will pay SILLY money for 1920s English banknotes. i don't remember the exact figures but it was very striking how completely the mattress outperformed the stockmarket, never mind banks/building societies. i, of course, have gone one better by spending all my money on Jyhad cards, collections of which are now quite valuable if Maverix is to be believed [a complete collection of everything pre-FN will set you back about 1100 GBP now, and you could easily have bought it for 500GBP. 2-fold return on capital not to be sneezed at over two years!]. > <snip>

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Tfh47.51715$Ro2.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>... > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > news:3B5139C6...@netcom.com... > > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > > > > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >I agree that White Wolf is not Wizards, which is why I'm > > > > >quite surprised that they won't sell sets. It's like a carnival > > > > > > > > Because if you just sell a complete set, then collectors don't even > > > > bother to buy the game, as a complete collection isn't ever worth > > > > anything more than retail cost of the set? You know, CCG does stand > > > > for "COLLECTIBLE" card game...? Not to mention that selling sets is > > > > less than wonderful from the players' aspect; how many sets do you > > > > want to buy in order to get 10 Disarms? And how many Weeks of > > > > Nightmares will you get in the process... and how do you get rid of > > > > the 5-7 you don't need? > > > > > > How many canopic jars do we need, per week of nightmares. > > > Actually, I will give white wolf some credit. They have taken some of > the > > > paper out of booster packs. > > > The super fat, more expensive sabbat packs suck. Actually, as a > collector > > > first I prefer not to have to lug tons of paper around my house. And I > like > > > that the packs now contain less common cards. Good for everyone. > > > > Then you should prefer Sabbat. Sabbat packs have 2 rares per 16 common > cards: > > an 8/1 ratio of the rarest to the most common card. Sabbat Wars, the > ratio > > is 14/1, doubling the number of common slots since the most common card is > a > > C2 compared to an R1. The curve in Final Nights is actually considerably > > steeper. > > > > Fred > Really! Wow..can you tell that I only ended up with a few sabbat packs? > Actually I always though that there was only a single rare in those packs. > Hmm..that way doesn't seem half bad. They were double price too weren't > they?(do you know the retail?) > > Aaron This is why I like the Sabbat expansion best of all expansions composition-wise. Because for about a 50% higher price per booster, you got 100% more rares (although I recall buying quite a few booster only having one rare-crd, so I think it wasn't supposed to always have 2 rares in one booster, more like 60-70% of the time or so, which is still better). Today you get almost only one third of the amount of cards compared to Sabbat, but for 2/3 of its price. I don't like FN at all where all the vampires are uncommons. But stricly card design-wise I think FN is the best expansions of all, almost no wallpapers! Really great job by WW. But please, go back to the model where some library cards are uncommons too :)

The Lasombra wrote: > Take a look at some of the higher priced "collectibles" some time. ie > Marianna Gilbert for $70 and up > Notice how one account keeps pushing the price higher and higher. > Notice how that account never wins an auction. > Its called bidding on your own auction and isn't supposed to happen, > but is a very common practice. > > This is fleecing. or fraud. I have been keeping an eye on Ebay and have yet to see Gilbert go for more than 20$. A search of the database over the last 30 days brings up nothing close to 70$. Raille

> > >Excuse me, but I quit playing Vampire when I was told that I couldn't > >use my Jyhad cards in tournaments any more. That may have changed > >since then, but you can't tell me that it didn't happen. > Jyhad cards were at no point in VTES history banned from tournament play. You were always allowed to have a mixed library, however you had to make sure the mix was roughly 50:50. Also, you have to make sure that Jyhad cards are not only of one type (e.g. Actions), because that would be "marking cards". The crypt has to be *either* Jyhad *or* VTES backs. Has never been different. Jyhad cards will never be banned from tournament play (except some cards that are on the banned list of the VEKN tournament rules). Carl

In message <e7883b0c.01071...@posting.google.com>, Carl Pilhatsch <carl.pi...@chello.at> writes >> >> >Excuse me, but I quit playing Vampire when I was told that I couldn't >> >use my Jyhad cards in tournaments any more. That may have changed >> >since then, but you can't tell me that it didn't happen. >> > >Jyhad cards were at no point in VTES history banned from tournament >play. You were always allowed to have a mixed library, however you had >to make sure the mix was roughly 50:50. Currently, the definition is "sufficiently mixed". >The crypt has to be *either* Jyhad *or* VTES backs. Has never been >different. Yes, it has. The current rules allow for sleeves (which many tournaments did anyway, regardless), and state nothing directly about the crypt. (Though such *could* go down as marking a deck.) Also, the rules on back-mixing were for a long time *optional* even if 99% of tournaments took them as read. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:10:37 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >The Lasombra wrote: > >> Take a look at some of the higher priced "collectibles" some time. ie >> Marianna Gilbert for $70 and up >> Notice how one account keeps pushing the price higher and higher. >> Notice how that account never wins an auction. >> Its called bidding on your own auction and isn't supposed to happen, >> but is a very common practice. >> >> This is fleecing. > >or fraud. Which is in the definition of fleecing. =) >I have been keeping an eye on Ebay and have yet to see Gilbert go for >more than 20$. > >A search of the database over the last 30 days brings up nothing close >to 70$. Look back about 90 days, maybe a little bit more. It was quite amusing to see. I don't know if the actual SALE ever happened, or it was just someone's automated bot up-bidding the price, but... -- Derek

On 18 Jul 2001 04:43:35 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mb9altof5dss3kg4o...@4ax.com>... >> it into non-disposable income), is STUFF IT IN YOUR MATTRESS AND SLEEP >> ON IT. And if you DO put it in your mattress, you're a damned moron >> for a number of different reasons. > >i recently listened a What To Do With Your Money programme on the >wireless. If you had had a few thousand GBP in the 1920s the >OVERWHELMINGLY most sensible thing you could have done with it was to >stick it in your mattress and sleep on it. This is because collectors >will pay SILLY money for 1920s English banknotes. i don't remember the That's just scary. In America, we'd probably use 1920s greenbacks for kleenex or something. =) -- Derek

IMHO, the whole argument that Whitewolf is forcing us to buy cards we don't want in order to get the cards we do want is undermined by the existence of the secondary market. Jason, if you want to buy only the cards you want, I'm sure Immortal Grapple Cards will be happy to oblige you. You'll pay more per card than if you were buying cards in retail boosters, but then again, your cards-by-demand scheme would also result in a higher price per card.

Roger Carhult wrote: > > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > > > Then you should prefer Sabbat. Sabbat packs have 2 rares per > > > 16 common cards: > > This is why I like the Sabbat expansion best of all expansions > composition-wise. Because for about a 50% higher price per booster, > you got 100% more rares (although I recall buying quite a few booster > only having one rare-crd, so I think it wasn't supposed to always have > 2 rares in one booster, more like 60-70% of the time or so, which is > still better). I believe you're thinking of Ancient Hearts. Ancient Hearts had 2 slots of the 12-card pack devoted to the uncommon sheet. The "uncommon sheet", however, was not homogenous. It had 25 cards which were printed 5 copies of each on the sheet (125 different cards). It had 37 cards which were printed 2 copies of each on the sheet (74 different cards). Thrown in Marijava Ghoul, which was printed 1 time on the unccommon sheet and 2 times on the vampire sheet and that's 200 different things (200 + 74 + 1) printed on the uncommon sheet. Well, more likely it was two different uncommon sheets of 100 things on each sheet and each sheet having one slot in each pack of cards. But regardless, it meant you only got a rare - or more correctly a "U2" - in 74% of the packs. In 26% of the packs, you'd have to settle for two of the "U5"s. Anyway, all the Sabbat packs, as far as I know, had two rares. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > (I can dig out more informative and direct quotes if people want.) Sure, if you don't mind. > Basically, it boiled down to the fact that in Jyhad you play bad guys. > Vampires are inherently bad and evil. So it's inappropriate for him to > like it. Playing bad guys == wrong. > > When it was pointed out that he was heavily involved with games that > depicted and glorified ritual suicide [Lo5R], along with killing a > playground full of school-children [Rage], as things done by the player, > he never responded in public that I saw. Wow. So Wizards put someone in charge of Jyhad who morally objected to Jyhad. Further proof that WotC had/have their heads up their own arses. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure what you mean by the argument being "undermined". I think pointing at singles dealers selling you a single - only and not with any cards you "don't want" - misses the point. I can also pay a friend to buy the packs for me, open them up, and throw away the commons before he hands me the remainder of the pack. Then I'm not paying for any commons, if you want to look at it that way... ...but really I am. I just don't have to look at them. Same with the singles dealer who's charging me a price on the single that represents a fair profit over having had to buy whole packs of cards, including the commons. And _he_ basically tosses the commons. Or the vast majority of them. So I fail to see your point. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ko5bltob4j4b8pkf7...@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:10:37 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > > Which is in the definition of fleecing. =) Not just fleecing. Performance fleecing, of the order of spending 9 pool for a vamp with inferior potence. ;)

The Lasombra wrote in message ... >Jason Bell <Jason...@maildot.com> wrote a whole lot in this thread >paraphrased - "I think the game will crash again because the people in >charge are idiots that haven't learned from Magic's problems (tournament >scene), just its economic model." >He goes on to say: > >> I strongly believe that it will happen, and such a crash >> may be inherent in the R-U-C product model. >> Artificial scarcity pushes up demand parallel with >> additional players pushing up demand. >> When interest in the game falls off, the additional player portion >> of demand drops, pushing more cards into secondary >> markets and driving prices for available product down, >> depressing the scarcity portion, and the bubble burts. > >What secondary market? > >There are three people selling singles on the net for VTES at this time. > >Errol Trepanier (Immortal Grapple Cards >http://www.thelasombra.com/ImmortalGrappleCards.htm) >Bob & Joyce Trotter (Sengir Cards http://www.sengir.com) >Me (http://www.TheLasombra.com/cardtrader.htm) > >Ebay is not a secondary market. I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the secondary market. In fact for some "collectables" it has almost taken over setting secondary pricing from printed price guides. This is the case in my other hobby, model railroads. Stores that used to sell used trains really cheap have over the last 3 years begain to charge almost exactly what those items tend to go for on ebay. At train shows you frequently hear, "That's not even what I could get for it on ebay". Like it or not ebay is rapidly becoming the secondary market for most collectables. You don't see this as much with V:tes yet because the market is still so small. There is not really enough people selling V:tes on ebay to get good averages for a certain box, card, etc.. If V:tes continues to grow it will eventually happen... >Ebay is the carnival desperate to fleece you. No, ebay is an auction. In most cases people pay what they are willing to pay. >Take a look at some of the higher priced "collectibles" some time. ie >Marianna Gilbert for $70 and up >Notice how one account keeps pushing the price higher and higher. >Notice how that account never wins an auction. >Its called bidding on your own auction and isn't supposed to happen, >but is a very common practice. True this happens. However it takes someone who is willing to pay such insane amounts to drive the price up. A shill can't drive the price up without someone else to bid against. If he bids against him self he is a dope because he gets stuck paying all the ebay fees. This practice is also not allowed and ebay is taking steps to track down such people and permanently remove all their user id's. It is also very easy to check out such dishonest behavior by checking bidding records. Most often the insane prices on ebay are not the result of shill bidding. In my experience there are 3 basic reasons auctions get bid up to crazy prices: 1) Lack of knowledge. Often people will bid on something they want without having any idea (or simply not caring) what the items value really is. They see it, they want it, they are going to get it. It's that simple. Such people will pay $10 for $1 Hot Wheel just because they want it. 2) They can't get it were they live. I have frequently sold model railroad equipment to people in Australia, Europe, and even Japan. Once you add shipping cost they often pay much more then I could find the item for around here. Why do they pay that much? They simply can't find the item were they live. It's worth it to them just to get the item. 3) They want the item NOW. Instant gratification. They don't want to wait until the item is in less demand, more available, or on sale. They have to have it right now. Some people will pay insane amounts of money to get what they want as soon as possible. Remember the fools paying and extra $20,000 just to be one of the first to get a Viper... In short I believe ebay eventually does set secondary market price. If a bunch of people are willing to pay $20 for Ezmerelda, and that card sells for an average of that price on ebay for 6 months or so, that will be what the secondary price starts to become. You will have some crazy stuff from shills and nuts, but eventually that will dissipate and real price will start to become clear and set. Steve Bucy - "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

In message <9j4ed...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy <tb...@lainet.com> writes >>Ebay is not a secondary market. > >I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the >secondary market. Ebay's just a playground for stupid people who can't be bothered to work out how much it would cost them to buy things outside of the auction, mostly, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> ===== >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >> >> This is evil. I am beginning to think Ryan S. Dancey was right about >> this game. It's all evil. First vampires, now capitalism. > >I'm curious what it was that Mr. Dancey originally said about this game... I >had heard it was something along the lines of objecting to the vampire >'theme'. > >Does anyone have any more information on this? Ryan posted only to VTES-L, not to r.g.t-c.jyhad, so his posts are a bit more difficult to retrieve. After being "asked" about his/FRPG's stance on the morality of V:TES vs. a Samurai game, Ryan responded with "vampires are evil" [VTES-L 11-FEB-98]. After more prodding, he likened the game to one where the players assume the roles of Nazi concentration camp commanders. [VTES-L 16-FEB-98]. With more prodding, he offered a similar view of another TCG - one involving mages. [VTES-L 19-FEB-98]. Citing personal correspondences from "WW staffers", he offered apologies to "those ... who may have been offended" by his Feb remarks. [VTES-L 6-MAR-98] To get these messages from the VTES-L archives, send the command GET VTES-L LOGYYMMZ in the *body* (not the subject) of an email to list...@oracle.wizards.com, where YY is the year (98 in this example), MM is the month number (02 for february) and Z is the letter roughly corresponding to the number of weeks into the month (that is, if the message is dated from the first of the month to the sixth of the month, the letter is 'A'. 'B' for 7th-13th, 'C' for 14th-20th, 'D' for 21st-27th, and 'E' for 28th-31st). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <9j4ed...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy > <tb...@lainet.com> writes > >>Ebay is not a secondary market. > > > >I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the > >secondary market. > > Ebay's just a playground for stupid people who can't be bothered to work > out how much it would cost them to buy things outside of the auction, > mostly, too. I totally agree with Steve. As he said, this happens. You see guys who'll pay $40 for a box of unopened Jyhad not realizing they can get it cheaper at Potomac. Or promotional cards that can be had in currently available magazines. But for the most part, I see very little selling on EBAY (at least in terms of VtES stuff), that's normally/immediately available elsewhere for cheaper. Your statement (and Jeff's) mystify me. Perhaps we follow different segments of EBAY transactions? Fred

In message <3B55D4A4...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >Your statement (and Jeff's) mystify me. Perhaps we follow different segments >of EBAY transactions? Marianna Gilbert. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B55D4A4...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >Your statement (and Jeff's) mystify me. Perhaps we follow different segments > >of EBAY transactions? > > Marianna Gilbert. That was a single example. In general, people pay 5-25 dollars for Marianna Gilbert which, given her lack of available elsewhere, is entirely reasonable. Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote > > IMHO, the whole argument that Whitewolf is forcing us to buy cards we > don't want in order to get the cards we do want is undermined by the > existence of the secondary market. Hmm, I would say the existence of the secondary market for every major TCG supports my assertion that TCG's force us to buy cards we don't want. The niche for secondary markets (which don't exist in most other game formats) to placate demand shows that the companies selling the cards randomly are not efficiently serving the demand for the product. In my view, the secondary market is the current kludge to TCG companies' unwillingness to sell cards in predictable packaging. Singles dealers accept the costs associated with overcoming randomness, and pass the costs, plus their cost of doing business, on to us. And there's nothing wrong with that, I am a customer and a fan of the secondary market in TCGs. But it is not efficient. > Jason, if you want to buy only the > cards you want, I'm sure Immortal Grapple Cards will be happy to > oblige you. To some extent, and only for a subset of cards that are not in high demand. My chances of finding a Freak Drive anywhere outside my own collection, or a big buy of VTES of Jyhad boxes, is slim. My chances of getting some commons from a set I never bought (Sabbat), however, are very good indeed. > You'll pay more per card than if you were buying cards in > retail boosters, but then again, your cards-by-demand scheme would > also result in a higher price per card. Actually, for the Nth card, as N gets larger and larger, the singles market is a better and better solution, since while you do pay extra for the card, you don't pay for the packs that did not contain the card, nor do you pay for all the incidental cards that you got along with it. It's unclear we'll ever know whether the second part of your point is true, since I'm confident TCG's will not offer singles-on-demand, except perhaps for manufacturer's defects, like machine-damaged cards. - Jason Bell

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B55AA16...@netcom.com>... > I think pointing at singles dealers selling you > a single - only and not with > any cards you "don't want" - misses the point. Really? Folks on this thread said they didn't like the gamble of buying X cards and not being guaranteed to get card Y. If the idea of buying cards they don't want (but might be able to trade) with no guarantee of getting the cards they do want makes them foam at the mouth, they could buy only the ones they want from a dealer. > I can also pay a friend to buy the packs for me, open them up, and throw > away the commons before he hands me the remainder of the pack. Then > I'm not paying for any commons, if you want to look at it that way... > ...but really I am. The secondary dealers I'm familiar with advertise commons, which leads me to believe that they are selling them. You may be more familiar with how they do business than I am, but certainly it seems foolish for dealers to throw away cards when they could make money by, say, offering bulk prices on large commons/uncommons purchases. After all, they already have the cards. Yes, buying all your cards from a secondary dealer will cost more per card than buying boosters. But like I said, the alternate delivery systems (cards on demand) others have proposed would also drive up the cost per card. Selling sets wouldn't necessarily raise the cost per card, but that model still results in customers buying cards you don't want: two Clan Loyalties per Dreams of the Sphinx in every Giovanni Starter, for example. If you only want to pay for the cards you want, buy from a dealer and get used to the higher price. If you just want to pay less per card, try arguing for that instead. Suggest a way to reduce card prices without lowering card quality, and while still making Whitewolf enough money to keep the division open. If you want both, try closing your eyes and wishing real hard.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B55AA16...@netcom.com>... > > I think pointing at singles dealers selling you > > a single - only and not with > > any cards you "don't want" - misses the point. > > Really? Folks on this thread said they didn't like the gamble of > buying X cards and not being guaranteed to get card Y. If the idea of > buying cards they don't want (but might be able to trade) with no > guarantee of getting the cards they do want makes them foam at the > mouth, they could buy only the ones they want from a dealer. > > > I can also pay a friend to buy the packs for me, open them up, and throw > > away the commons before he hands me the remainder of the pack. Then > > I'm not paying for any commons, if you want to look at it that way... > > ...but really I am. > > The secondary dealers I'm familiar with advertise commons, which leads > me to believe that they are selling them. You may be more familiar > with how they do business than I am, but certainly it seems foolish > for dealers to throw away cards when they could make money by, say, > offering bulk prices on large commons/uncommons purchases. After all, > they already have the cards. It doesn't work that way. Certain commons and uncommons will always be in demand and sellable but the vast majority of them are not. In fact, few singles dealers even bother to sell such cards. Those that do will quote something like a quarter a card or something that represents their price for bothering to go find one. And under no circumstances are these people selling all the commons (and likely not even the uncommons) they open. If they could, then there'd be some trade value to the ones I pull out of packs. Which there isn't. So all you're doing is just what I said in my last post. You're paying a singles dealer to do all the same dirty work I'd have to do - buy packs, throw away the untradable stuff I can't use, and go find someone to trade the stuff I need to me for the stuff I've got too much of. Yes, that answers the immediate issues Jason Bell was complaining about. But it answers them in a kind of obvious way by throwing money at the problem until it goes away. It's like bitching about such-and-such a car company builds shoddy cards which keep breaking down and having someone suggest taking the car to an auto mechanic. It's not the point. > Yes, buying all your cards from a secondary dealer will cost more per > card than buying boosters. But like I said, the alternate delivery > systems (cards on demand) others have proposed would also drive up the > cost per card. Selling sets wouldn't necessarily raise the cost per > card, but that model still results in customers buying cards you don't > want: two Clan Loyalties per Dreams of the Sphinx in every Giovanni > Starter, for example. Yea, I understand. Mind you, I'm not necessarily a proponent of having White Wolf sell sets or singles or any other particular way of doing it. But I see Jason's point. Instead of having singles sellers get a cut and still having to deal with a bunch of wasted cardboard, why not let people order just exactly the cards they want to have in their collection. It might cost more per card but in theory it would be more efficient - at least from a materials standpoint. My fear, and probably a lot of other people here are trying to express the same thing, is that from a labor standpoint, this is likely to *not* be the most efficient way to print and sell cards for a constructed card game. To lower the cost, cards need to be printed in huge print runs. This involves predicting how many of what cards will be ordered. And having individuals go pick out, pack, and ship singles is not likely to nearly be as efficient as prebuilt, prepackaged groups of cards, whether randomly ordered or in specific grouping such as the precon decks. And the trouble with precons or whole card sets or any form of planned sets is that they may not be the groups anyone wants (as you say, "two Clan Loyalties per Dreams of the Sphinx in every Giovanni Starter). So ultimately, I question if the business can be improved substantially in any way. It would be interesting to have someone try this and see if they can make it work somehow. Fred

James Coupe wrote in message ... >In message <9j4ed...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy ><tb...@lainet.com> writes >>>Ebay is not a secondary market. >> >>I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the >>secondary market. > >Ebay's just a playground for stupid people who can't be bothered to work >out how much it would cost them to buy things outside of the auction, >mostly, too. There is a nice broad, general statement. It may apply to the V:tes auctions on ebay (I haven't checked V:tes ebay sales much), and certainly applies to some mindless ebay users, however in my experience doesn't apply to most ebay users. I get some amazing deals off ebay. In fact model railroading is so amazingly expensive I probably wouldn't be able to continue in the hobby without ebay. I find deals almost every week at way less then internet discount hobby sites. Most of the stuff I sell on ebay goes for very resonable (much less then retail) prices too. Steve Bucy "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B55D4A4...@netcom.com>... >James Coupe wrote: >> >> In message <9j4ed...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy >> <tb...@lainet.com> writes >> >>Ebay is not a secondary market. >> > >> >I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the >> >secondary market. >> >> Ebay's just a playground for stupid people who can't be bothered to work >> out how much it would cost them to buy things outside of the auction, >> mostly, too. > >I totally agree with Steve. As he said, this happens. You see guys who'll >pay $40 for a box of unopened Jyhad not realizing they can get it cheaper >at Potomac. Or promotional cards that can be had in currently available >magazines. But for the most part, I see very little selling on EBAY (at >least in terms of VtES stuff), that's normally/immediately available elsewhere >for cheaper. This is my experience too. I bid way below discount prices and I still win a great deal of stuff. I have got many $100 retail ($75 or $80 discount) model train engines for $50, $40 or even less off ebay. I got a lot of 7th Sea decks for about $3 each (8 for $25) including shipping. You just need to know what you are doing. >Your statement (and Jeff's) mystify me. Perhaps we follow different segments >of EBAY transactions? I think this probably the issue. They have probably only check V:tes and certain other "collectable" items that all the nuts seem bid on. Never go to ebay to find a new Hot Wheel, action figure, or such items. Steve Bucy -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:02:06 -0400, LSJ wrote: >After being "asked" about his/FRPG's stance on the morality of V:TES vs. a >Samurai game, Ryan responded with "vampires are evil" [VTES-L 11-FEB-98]. > >After more prodding, he likened the game to one where the players assume >the roles of Nazi concentration camp commanders. [VTES-L 16-FEB-98]. Why is this controversial? Isn't it a given that Methusalehs have long been corrupted by the Beast and so are totally evil from a human perspective. We're not dealing with sensitive, caring TV vampires like Angel, Nick and Julian, are we? I've just cracked open some Rage starters and see that even the Werewolves regard Vampires as sick creatures of evil - servants of the Wyrm who corrupt the mother earth. You guys are incorrigible fanboys who just can't stand to hear anyone dis your beloved vamps. I'm reminded of that wonderful Buffy episode, "Lie to Me", in which the Scoobies meet up with some dreamy goths: CHANTARELLE - We welcome anyone who's interested in the Lonely Ones. WILLOW - The Lonely Ones? ANGEL - Vampires. XANDER - Oh. We usually call them the nasty pointy bitey ones. CHANTARELLE - So many people have that misconception. But they who walk with the night are not interested in harming anyone. They're separate from humanity, and must carry the burden of immortality. They are creatures above us. Exalted. Spike soon sets them straight. Andrew

In message <649D32A3238753D9.1E587F75...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:02:06 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>After being "asked" about his/FRPG's stance on the morality of V:TES vs. a >>Samurai game, Ryan responded with "vampires are evil" [VTES-L 11-FEB-98]. >> >>After more prodding, he likened the game to one where the players assume >>the roles of Nazi concentration camp commanders. [VTES-L 16-FEB-98]. > >Why is this controversial? Isn't it a given that Methusalehs have >long been corrupted by the Beast and so are totally evil from a human >perspective. We're not dealing with sensitive, caring TV vampires >like Angel, Nick and Julian, are we? It's somewhat controversial when the person in charge of the brand uses it as a way of attempting to discharge all responsibility for it simply because he doesn't like it. It's also somewhat controversial when a person cannot disassociate reality from fantasy. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > Hmm, I would say the existence of the secondary market for > every major TCG supports my assertion that TCG's force > us to buy cards we don't want. In case you missed Derek's post you should really read it. To paraphrase, "Nobody is forcing you to buy a damned thing." My girlfriend does not like Jyhad, or any other CCG, for that matter. Guess how many cards that she's purchased that she didn't want. Correct. The answer is "zero." If you are a collector, you understand that if you want a hard to find card, you have to buy a ton of packs to get it. That is/was extremely true of baseball cards. And remember, CCG stands for collectible card game. If that deosn't clue you in to the nature of the beast, the other name, trading card game, should. If you'd like a card game that you can buy the entire set and it has no impact on the value of the game, I have just the game for you. It's called Poker. Noal

In message <3B561FE5...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> writes >If you'd like a card game that you can buy the entire set and it has no >impact on the value of the game, I have just the game for you. It's >called Poker. Wimp. Anyway, Mahjong is more fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > If you'd like a card game that you can buy the entire set and it has no > impact on the value of the game, I have just the game for you. It's > called Poker. The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card games *must* be sold this way. It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/ deckbuilding games and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. You could have one without the other. They just happen to work well together. Fred

Ok, I wasn't going to make a serious (OT) post, but since the thread seems to be growing (and nobody bit on my pointless deck idea troll)... ;) On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:48:10 -0700, "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote: > >The Lasombra wrote in message ... <snip> >>Ebay is not a secondary market. > > >I disagree with this statement. Ebay has definately become a part of the >secondary market. In fact for some "collectables" it has almost taken over >setting secondary pricing from printed price guides. This is the case in my [ramble] I completely agree (with Steve). Further, I'd say that the online auctions (of which Ebay is a particular one) are a key part of the secondary market, and are in perfect position to set secondary prices, because: (a) They have global scope. (b) They're real-time. (c) They track actual sales transactions, as opposed to reported transactions or averages. So what does that mean? It means that the highest bidder will be drawn from interested parties from various markets across the world, each with their own local price structures that may be higher or lower than each other. Since the highest bidder wins, the closed (successful) auctions represent the high-end of the distribution of all bidders' highest bids for an item, usually from bidders that live in the "high-price" market area, or other bidders that compete with them. It does seem then, that local/regional supply shortages or demand spikes can provoke price action on the (global) auction sites. It is very much up to the market participants to compare the local trend to the auction site, and alter their participation as necessary. And since everybody can see the results (often over time), prospective buyers and sellers can refer to the up-to-date transaction record, and the in-progress auctions, to evaluate their own price positions. If the difference is significant (as measured by the individual), their acceptable buying or selling price will change, generally depending on how much a participant's cost model is tied to qualities like pride, inventory costs, impulsiveness, disposable income, purpose for item, etc. As an illustrative (and recent) exercise, compare any vendor list to the comparable card prices on an auction site, and note the differences, particularly between the list and the most 'expensive' site. The resulting difference represents either unclaimed or unwanted money. The big deal about CCGs, particularly CCG singles, is that sales don't exist outside of the secondary market. We can't call up White Wolf to order singles (although if they can print up a few dozen more Blood Tears, I'll buy them ;). [/ramble]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:29:30 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >You guys are incorrigible fanboys who just can't stand to hear anyone >dis your beloved vamps. I'm reminded of that wonderful Buffy episode, >"Lie to Me", in which the Scoobies meet up with some dreamy goths: That's a feeble troll, but I keep having to remind myself that if nobody responds, some clueless individual is going to look at this thread in the future and say "Wow, he's right." (right after saying "It's Unix ... I _know_ this!" ) So, for the uninitiated Usenet reader: Andrew has employed the trolling method of responding to a description of an individual by presenting that description as a mentality of the target group. The clever Usenet reader should recognize this tactic and properly flag the quoted message as a troll.

"LSJ" <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote <snip> Thanks Scott... Very interesting. You know, it's funny... I remember playing a board game with my cousin in England when I was very young where one player is trying to get his prisoners to escape from a concentration camp and the other player plays guards trying to stop them. I have no idea what it was called... strange. Cheers, WES

>Thanks Scott... > >Very interesting. > >You know, it's funny... I remember playing a board game with my cousin in >England when I was very young where one player is trying to get his >prisoners to escape from a concentration camp and the other player plays >guards trying to stop them. I have no idea what it was called... strange. > >Cheers, >WES Could it have been.. Mystery Date? Or possibly an odd variation of backgammon?? Hmmm..

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote > > Could it have been.. > > Mystery Date? No... doubt that. > Or possibly an odd variation of backgammon?? Heh. No, but not dissimilar to Backgammon I suppose. I do remember there being a top-down map of the camp and a super-imposed grid for moving the pieces around. I'm sure that were I to play the game today I would find its theme reprehensible, but as a politically ignorant 7-year old, I seemed to enjoy it. It's possible that it may have had something to do with movies like The Great Escape or Bridge on the River Kwai. May have even been a game franchised from one of these movies... so more POW than concentration camp. Anybody know? Maybe if we can find out what it was, we can petition Ryan S. Dancey to reproduce it... Cheers, WES

evil_p...@moc.oohay.yahoo.com wrote: > > Ok, I wasn't going to make a serious (OT) post, but since the thread > seems to be growing (and nobody bit on my pointless deck idea > troll)... ;) Out of curiousity, why would you think this thread was off-topic? OK, the question of R-U-C CCG random pack distribution isn't necessarily specific to Jyhad and thus belong arguably to r.g.t-c.misc, but since we're putting it in the context of White Wolf and VtES, I'd think it would be close enough. Fred

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > Hmm, I would say the existence of the secondary market for > > every major TCG supports my assertion that TCG's force > > us to buy cards we don't want. > > In case you missed Derek's post you should really read it. To > paraphrase, "Nobody is forcing you to buy a dam*ed thing." Yes, I read the post, but I strongly disagree with the sentiment. I think it is wrong-headed to insist on the "put up with it or get out, nobody's forcing you" position, in the same way I disagree with the "that's the way it is in America, if you don't like it leave." I believe something more along the lines of Carl Schurz: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." - Address, Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, 10/17/1899 So I see nothing wrong in having a discussion on how the problems I see with TCG's in general and V:tES in particular might or might not be solved, regardless of whether those problems are currently enough to drive me away from the game. But more to the point, if I want to play with additional game pieces for this game, and I want to buy those pieces from the game's manufacturer, I am indeed forced to buy cards I don't need in addition to the ones I actually want, with no certainty of actually getting the ones I want. This is a very peculiar feature in an economic transaction, and the only similar arrangement I can think of is those prize machines that they set up next to the gumball machines. - Jason Bell

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] What about the Star Wars TCG? There are StormTroopers in that game, and one player always plays the role of the evil Empire, using the Dark Side of the Force. - Jason Bell

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:57:23 -0400, Wes wrote: >You know, it's funny... I remember playing a board game with my cousin in >England when I was very young where one player is trying to get his >prisoners to escape from a concentration camp and the other player plays >guards trying to stop them. I have no idea what it was called... strange. It's called Escape from Colditz and it was a POW camp. It's a great game and there used to be tournaments every year at Games Day in the UK, presented by the designer Major Pat Reid (who was one of the real escapees and wrote a good book about it). I won one year and my prize is right here still - a fine Mah Jongg set. See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=715 Andrew

> What about the Star Wars TCG? There are StormTroopers in > that game, and one player always plays the role of the evil Empire, > using the Dark Side of the Force. > > - Jason Bell What about INWO ? You can be the Servants of Cthulhu whose aim is simply to destroy the world... Pierre

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:16:01 GMT, evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com wrote: >some clueless individual is going to look at this >thread in the future and say "Wow, he's right." Can't have that can we. Folk here love to pound on Dancey because he had the temerity to leave VTES in the state that he found it. Given that the game was a basket case at that point, that was a sensible move. His point about the players being one-sidedly evil was a good one from a marketing perspective as that obviously limits its appeal. The CCGs which have sold like hot cakes since are those which are more cute and fluffy - Pokemon, Magination and the like. Another fun quote which comes to mind is the episode of Dork Tower in which the game store owner is trying to persuade a concerned Mom that gaming is good. "So you see, gaming isn't just a hobby but a series of interlocked, creative pastimes that are rich enough to provide a lifetime's worth of adventure. They are not just safe, they're guaranteed to encourage intellectual growth, educational thought, emotional maturity and social sophistication!" Matt chases Carson past the two of them, dressed in a black cape and fangs. "Argh! Prepare to taste hot throbbing vampire DEATH, clan Gangrene scum!" "AIEEEE!" The store owner buries his head in his hands as the mom bawls, "Off to Military School with you, young man!". Meanwhile, off-stage, Carson is saying, "Roll the dice. I want to see if I eat your spleen..." Andrew

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:46:45 -0400, Noal McDonald wrote: >If you'd like a card game that you can buy the entire set and it has no >impact on the value of the game, I have just the game for you. It's >called Poker. It's collecting those greenbacks that's tough though. It's an NCL game and I still don't have enough Jacksons. And then there are those ultra-rare chase cards like the Salmon P. Chase.... Andrew

evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com wrote in message news:<h3cclto6rmktuvsag...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Sigh. Once again, i find myself agreeing with Andrew. i think there may be TWO Andrews, and perhaps which one is on top depends upon the phase of the moon; alternatively, perhaps there are two me's. i actually think that vampires are the epitome of evil, because they use people emotionally and physically with total callous disregard for them as anything but a resource for vampiric gratification. i think the great clever thing about VtM is the way it presents the PROCESS of becoming evil, starting off with just having peculiar dietary habits and ending up as a monster. i get bewildered by people who actually LIKE vampires [quite a lot of my RPG/LARP friends do, you know]. But the issue with Ryan Dancey was his apparent hypocrisy, not his views about the Lonely Ones. As James C has said, we did not see why vampires were any more evil than werewolves or than some of the concepts in Lo5R.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > > It's called Escape from Colditz and it was a POW camp. It's a great > game and there used to be tournaments every year at Games Day in the > UK, presented by the designer Major Pat Reid (who was one of the real > escapees and wrote a good book about it). I won one year and my prize > is right here still - a fine Mah Jongg set. > > See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=715 Wow. That takes me back. This is indeed the game I was talking about. Ok, since we're way off topic now, what other games do people like right now? I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There are several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? I have limited experience with games really... My interest in Jyhad came from an interest in vampire mythology, not gaming. My interest in the RPG/LARP actually came from playing and enjoying Jyhad. Any other games I should check out? Thanks Andrew.

Derek Ray wrote: > Look back about 90 days, maybe a little bit more. It was quite > amusing to see. I don't know if the actual SALE ever happened, or it > was just someone's automated bot up-bidding the price, but... Unless I am wrong, and I'm never wrong, Ebay's searchable data only goes back 30 days. The individual auctions are maintained for 90 days, but without the direct link they become 'lost' to archive diggers. Raille

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B55D4A4...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >Your statement (and Jeff's) mystify me. Perhaps we follow different segments > >of EBAY transactions? > > Marianna Gilbert. > > -- > James Coupe I still have yet to see her go for more than 20$. While the R1's from FN have gone just over 20$. Raille

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:45:04 -0400, Wes wrote: >> It's called Escape from Colditz and it was a POW camp. It's a great >> game and there used to be tournaments every year at Games Day in the >> UK, presented by the designer Major Pat Reid (who was one of the real >> escapees and wrote a good book about it). I won one year and my prize >> is right here still - a fine Mah Jongg set. >> >> See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=715 > >Wow. That takes me back. This is indeed the game I was talking about. > >Ok, since we're way off topic now, what other games do people like right >now? We clearly need to cross-post this to rec.games.board. >I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There are >several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are >referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? It has a big following but I'm not one of its fans. There's a dedicated convention coming up. >I have limited experience with games really... My interest in Jyhad came >from an interest in vampire mythology, not gaming. My interest in the >RPG/LARP actually came from playing and enjoying Jyhad. > >Any other games I should check out? The MB Buffy the Vampire Slayer game is a must. It has a similar structure to the Colditz game - one player plays all the bad guys and everyone moves around the board freely, scrounging pencils, pool cues and other useful stuff. For a quick filler, try some of the real-time card games like Rat Splatter, Falling or Brawl. The latter has a Shadowfist character now and VTES needs to keep up with the Jones. What VTES vampire would you pick as a Brawl character ... the Beast? Andrew

In message <8DF8AF9D716EB7C3.598E3CE0...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Folk here love to pound on Dancey because he had the temerity to leave >VTES in the state that he found it. Unsupported assertion. Large parts of WotC had left it in the state they found it prior to Dancey. They have never been attacked in the way Dancey was. > Given that the game was a basket >case at that point, that was a sensible move. Unsupported assertion that the game was a "basket case". The game had been selling out print-runs which should surely have been costed properly. >His point about the >players being one-sidedly evil was a good one from a marketing >perspective as that obviously limits its appeal. Unsupported assertion. That was *not* his inference. For instance, Robert Goudie's fears regarding: "Why? Rumors have been flying about the FRPG Standards and Practices Guidelines' impact on V:tES. " Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:39:32 -0800 You would do well to at least research your unsupported assertions first. This was *not* Dancey saying "Look, I'm more than happy to work with you on the game but look at the marketing angle, guys." > The CCGs which have >sold like hot cakes since are those which are more cute and fluffy - >Pokemon, Magination and the like. Straw-man. Pokémon had a computer game and TV programme to draw millions of children's pocket money in with. A more realistic comparison is surely with something like Shadowrun, established RPG etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

I believe something > more along the lines of Carl Schurz: > > "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; > when wrong, to be put right." > - Address, Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, 10/17/1899 > So when did Carl Schurz emigrate to America? > But more to the point, if I want to play with > additional game pieces for this game, and I > want to buy those pieces from the game's > manufacturer, I am indeed forced to buy > cards I don't need in addition to the ones > I actually want, with no certainty of actually > getting the ones I want. This is a very peculiar > feature in an economic transaction, > and the only similar arrangement I can > think of is those prize machines that they > set up next to the gumball machines. It is actually more like the baseball card business except you get to play with the cards. Sometimes you get Sammy Sosa. Sometimes you get Koko...er Jeff Bagwell. Also could you please respond to my above thread on the weaknesses of marketing sets? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:8DF8AF9D716EB7C3.598E3CE0...@lp.airnews.net... [clip] > Folk here love to pound on Dancey because he had the temerity to leave > VTES in the state that he found it. That's not the case at all. The problem was that Ryan thought the game was immoral and that it would be "wrong" for FRPG to produce any additional cards *even if a sound business case could be made". I know for a fact that many of the higher-ups involved with creating the game were also mad as hell at Ryan for his comments. In essense, he was saying that Richard Garfield, Peter Adkison, and the rest of the crew were acting immorally when they created the game--a mistake he wasn't going to repeat. Here's an additional reason everyone hated Ryan. He said there was too little demand for V:TES but also said he wouldn't sell the game to another company because he didn't want to compete against it in the marketplace. He was *personally* pronouncing a death sentence for V:TES by being opposed on moral grounds to producing cards and by being unwilling to sell the game to anyone else. > Given that the game was a basket > case at that point, that was a sensible move. > His point about the > players being one-sidedly evil was a good one from a marketing > perspective as that obviously limits its appeal. With both these points you assume that Ryan's leaving the game alone was solely a business decision when he himself admitted that wasn't the entire issue. -Robert -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

> I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There are > several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are > referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? Titan , the monster slugathon game, rocks! It just takes as long as a game of chess or VTES to play. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:55:20 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >That's not the case at all. The problem was that Ryan thought the game was >immoral and that it would be "wrong" for FRPG to produce any additional cards >*even if a sound business case could be made". I know for a fact that many of >the higher-ups involved with creating the game were also mad as hell at Ryan for >his comments. In essense, he was saying that Richard Garfield, Peter Adkison, >and the rest of the crew were acting immorally when they created the game--a >mistake he wasn't going to repeat. It'd be nice to know what he actually said but I don't feel like wrestling with the WotC listserver. His hands seem fairly clean compared to the other two. Garfield didn't follow through as the designer and, by all accounts, handed the game over to idiots. Adkison was the man behind the change of name and card-backs, wasn't he - a change made for PC/moral reasons. They've both taken the money and run while Dancey is still working away at WotC where his D&D 3rd ed is a massive success, I gather. >Here's an additional reason everyone hated Ryan. He said there was too little >demand for V:TES but also said he wouldn't sell the game to another company >because he didn't want to compete against it in the marketplace. He was >*personally* pronouncing a death sentence for V:TES by being opposed on moral >grounds to producing cards and by being unwilling to sell the game to anyone >else. That's just hard-nosed business. I wouldn't have thought he'd be on strong ground though as WW's licence agreement should have precluded dog-in-the-manger tactics. >With both these points you assume that Ryan's leaving the game alone was solely >a business decision when he himself admitted that wasn't the entire issue. I still have trouble buying this picture of him as a moral fascist when he was quite ready to republish Rage and did so. There isn't much to choose between the games on such grounds - there's an obvious family resemblance. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:55:20 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > > >That's not the case at all. The problem was that Ryan thought the game was > >immoral and that it would be "wrong" for FRPG to produce any additional cards > >*even if a sound business case could be made". I know for a fact that many of > >the higher-ups involved with creating the game were also mad as hell at Ryan for > >his comments. In essense, he was saying that Richard Garfield, Peter Adkison, > >and the rest of the crew were acting immorally when they created the game--a > >mistake he wasn't going to repeat. > > It'd be nice to know what he actually said but I don't feel like > wrestling with the WotC listserver. > [...] > I still have trouble buying this picture of him as a moral fascist > when he was quite ready to republish Rage and did so. There isn't > much to choose between the games on such grounds - there's an obvious > family resemblance. I can see how you would have that trouble since you have only hearsay upon which to base your opinion. I'd suggest following the realtively simple instructions given previously to acquire Ryan's own messages in order to form a more well-founded opinion. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card > games *must* be sold this way. VTES is not just a "constructable" card game. It is a _collectible_ card game and a _trading_ card game. As such, absolutely it must be sold that way. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. Selling a set of cards in such a a manner as to make them equally accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors. Notice that this is much different than Lunch Money. When was the last time that you saw individual Lunch Money cards being auctioned on e-bay? > It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/deckbuilding games > and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. True. But selling a card set as a complete set and selling it a collectible set _are_ mutually exclusive. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate complete naivete regarding the economics of the secondary market and how it affects the profitibility of CCGs. The only reason one would issue collectible cards as a set is because the cards are no longer in print, there is sufficient demand for them and the company no longer has interest in marketing *those* cards as collectible. That is not to say that future expansions on that set cannot be marketed as collectible. Regards, Noal

In article <D90A44BB2B8824BD.A5BE1262...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:45:04 -0400, Wes wrote: >>Any other games I should check out? (I don't have the original to reply to.) As a matter of completeness I'll mention a German card game (*) Vampire. However I should add that, although the game is by one of the great designers, it's not his best, the artwork is somewhat detrimental to the play of the game (but is vampire themed) and in game terms the vampire theme is very very thin. On the other hand it's pretty cheap (probably less than the cost of many Jyhad single cards - I'm not in that market). I did say completeness! (*) I know you said board game, but I believe I'm still on topic in r.g.b. I know the uk.* equivalent expressly permits those proprietary card games played by board game players. Drawing the line between the two is impossible anyway. Please note this is not a CCG (which are generally off-topic, although I can think of one I'd be happy to see discussed here; it isn't Magic or Jyhad however). -- Christopher Dearlove

Didn't TSR many many many years ago put out a set of mini-games with boards and chits and such. I remember one called Saga, and one called Revolt (or Assault) on Antares and one called Vampire. Again for completeness sake. I remember playing Saga and Vampire and enjoying them both. They came in a blister pack (around the size of a hardcover book). Matt

> > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote >> >> It's called Escape from Colditz and it was a POW camp. It's a great >> game and there used to be tournaments every year at Games Day in the >> UK, presented by the designer Major Pat Reid (who was one of the real >> escapees and wrote a good book about it). I won one year and my prize >> is right here still - a fine Mah Jongg set. >> >> See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewitem.php3?gameid=715 > > Wow. That takes me back. This is indeed the game I was talking about. > > Ok, since we're way off topic now, what other games do people like right > now? > > I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There are > several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are > referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? Not in years. Think I'm about to sell my copy off. Got lots of fun out of it, but it's a tad abstract if you like the whole World of Darkness richness. However, if you like Risk for the game, then it's easy to love Titan for the game. Have to say that I was unimpressed with Buffy the Vampire Hunter boardgame. Evil doesn't have enough unique cards to play with, and there are a few unexplained rules (such as, two combatants can be in "adjacent" squares with a wall between them. While the intent is obvious that they can't fight, no rule forbids this.) It was a bit of fun, but playing Witch Trial right afterwards shows a GOOD game. Great theme, fast game, good back and forth dealing. Huge amounts of fun. Personally, I need to play more Cheapass Games, since most all of them seem to be good. > I have limited experience with games really... My interest in Jyhad came > from an interest in vampire mythology, not gaming. My interest in the > RPG/LARP actually came from playing and enjoying Jyhad. Well, if you play computer games, I'll plug Master of Magic again (thought I think you already praised that one), and Thief/Thief2. Thief is head and shoulders above any of the competition, in theme, original mechanics, and immersion. Especially immersion; which requires playing in total darkness, but the sneaking in the shadows permits zero screen glare. =) Anyway, Master of Magic is the single most replayable game of all time. I still play it, and it offers everything Civilization does and much, much more. While Thief is in my top5, MoM is #1, easy. I don't play enough boardgames after that, myself. Andrew and Scott are among the most "diverse" game-players here that I know of (Andrew by his posts, and Scott by having seen his closet-full of games. =) -- Pat Ricochet See Dick hit on the con chicks. Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta See Dick get shot down in flames. Shoot, shoot, flames. Dick is a fanboy.

On cheepass games, my wife and I have loved Spree since it came out years ago, and Kill Dr. Lucky is a cult classic that I saw LARPed at Gen Con and Origins some years ago. Good stuff. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] The boardgame "Chill: Blackthorn Manor" has vampire overtones running through it. The final Master may or may not be a Vampire. Randy

I believe that WotC screwed up by releasing it as "JYHAD" in the first place. Adkinson (or whomever) attempted to correct this Marketing problem by changing the card backs. Personally I'm glad he did, as VAMPIRE resonates with the general public much more so than JYHAD. Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun Friend: What's it called Bernie: Jyhad Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something completely different] If ya have to put out some blame, how about to WotC for overproducing an untested product? Had there been less Jyhad backed cards flooding the market, the newer expansions would have sold through sooner. > Garfield didn't follow through as the designer and, by all accounts, handed > the game over to idiots. >Adkison was the man behind the change of name and card-backs, wasn't >he - a change made for PC/moral reasons. As I stated, it was most likely a change based on Marketing reasons. Unless you have some memo that states otherwise.. Bernie

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > Well, if you play computer games, I'll plug Master of Magic again > (thought I think you already praised that one), and Thief/Thief2. Thief is > head and shoulders above any of the competition, in theme, original > mechanics, and immersion. Especially immersion; which requires playing in > total darkness, but the sneaking in the shadows permits zero screen glare. > =) Yeah, I loved Thief. I haven't tried Part Deux yet but the first one was a riot. It *far* surpassed all those silly 3rd-P-Shooter games which frankly bore the piss out of me. Another game by the same designers that you might want to check out is System Shock II. Wonderful game. It is a 3rd-PS game as well technically, but involves character development and is *far* more scary than Thief ever was. This game kicked my ass it was so scary. > Anyway, Master of Magic is the single most replayable game of all time. > I still play it, and it offers everything Civilization does and much, much > more. While Thief is in my top5, MoM is #1, easy. Aye... it badly needs to be remade. I'd throw the original X-Com on my top 5 as well. Cheers, WES

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:22:08 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >evil_p...@moc.oohay.yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Ok, I wasn't going to make a serious (OT) post, but since the thread >> seems to be growing (and nobody bit on my pointless deck idea >> troll)... ;) > >Out of curiousity, why would you think this thread was off-topic? >OK, the question of R-U-C CCG random pack distribution isn't necessarily >specific to Jyhad and thus belong arguably to r.g.t-c.misc, but since we're >putting it in the context of White Wolf and VtES, I'd think it would be close >enough. > >Fred I don't think the thread was particularly offtopic, but I didn't see a whole lot of on-topic material I could add, by coughing up opinion on auction sites & the secondary market.

>Any other games I should check out? It is out of print and hard to find, but The Fury of Dracula by Games Workshop is well worth the search.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > "Why? Rumors have been flying about the FRPG > Standards and Practices Guidelines' impact on V:tES. " > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:39:32 -0800 Sorry... what is the 'FRPG'?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:22:02 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> said: Andrew> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:55:20 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >> That's not the case at all. The problem was that Ryan thought the >> game was immoral and that it would be "wrong" for FRPG to produce >> any additional cards *even if a sound business case could be made". >> I know for a fact that many of the higher-ups involved with >> creating the game were also mad as hell at Ryan for his comments. >> In essense, he was saying that Richard Garfield, Peter Adkison, and >> the rest of the crew were acting immorally when they created the >> game--a mistake he wasn't going to repeat. Andrew> It'd be nice to know what he actually said but I don't feel like Andrew> wrestling with the WotC listserver. His hands seem fairly clean Andrew> compared to the other two. As someone who was here when Ryan made his comments... yes, what Robert and others are saying is true. Ryan disliked the game for personal/moral reasons and went out of his way to make sure no development was done on it. It was a nasty situation, and a lot of people (including me) were quite pissed off at him. //Petri

>Adkinson (or whomever) attempted to correct this Marketing problem >by changing the card backs. Personally I'm glad he did, as VAMPIRE >resonates with the general public much more so than JYHAD. > >Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun >Friend: What's it called >Bernie: Jyhad >Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something > completely different] > Yep. I have to admit that even after all these years, it's still a bit awkward saying the name of the game. I usually refer to it as "Jyhad / VTES." And yes, I mean I say "Jyhad slash VTES." =) Halcyan 2

> Well, if you play computer games, I'll plug Master of Magic again >(thought I think you already praised that one), << some stuff snipped >> > Anyway, Master of Magic is the single most replayable game of all time. >I still play it, and it offers everything Civilization does and much, much >more. And once more I'll have to second Pat on his motion. Master of Magic was just SO cool! Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote > > Yep. I have to admit that even after all these years, it's still a bit awkward > saying the name of the game. I usually refer to it as "Jyhad / VTES." And yes, > I mean I say "Jyhad slash VTES." =) I agree that the name Jyhad is inappropriate--in more ways than one. The name does not actually suggest that the game is about vampires! But it's just so much easier to say than Vampire: the Eternal Struggle. Hell, even the initials V.T.E.S. take more time to say than the two syllables Jee-Hadd. And you can't call it Vampire because then people think you're referring to the RPG or worse, the LARP, or maybe even Dark Ages. <sigh> From now on I'll just call it 'That Game'. Unless LSJ is willing to change the name again? Maybe call it 'Fang-Wars' or something... I'm sure you could just print up some new card-backings :) Cheers, WES

>I agree that the name Jyhad is inappropriate--in more ways than one. The >name does not actually suggest that the game is about vampires! Actually, I don't mind the name of "Jyhad." I mean that is really what the game is all about. It's about the eternal struggles, wars, and manipulations of ancient powers (you). While Vampire: the Eternal Struggle might be more descriptive to the average joe, I like the aire of mystery and the subtle connotations associated with Jyhad. Of course there are the problems where people of some religions might object to using the word "Jyhad." And from a marketing standpoint, it makes much more sense to advertise the game as pertaining the vampires. But then again, remember the whole line of reasoning about how the game would still be great if it was about dog poo? In that case, VTES wouldn't be as appropriate as Jyhad (the eternal battles over poo!). =) Halcyan 2

gfa...@earthlink.net (George Fagin) wrote in message news:<3237275d.01071...@posting.google.com>... > >Any other games I should check out? > > It is out of print and hard to find, but The Fury of Dracula by Games > Workshop is well worth the search. Agreed, but it was HORRIBLY easy for the Dracula character to cheat in this game, IME. And even if you didn't cheat there was a way to break the game by spending lots of time at sea if you were the vampire [i don't remember the details]. Mind you, Kingmaker was worse in that regard, and had the additional silliness of your one noble being able to take on the WHOLE enemy army, with a decent chance of killing off a large chunk of it and then Royal Pardoning himself out of trouble. i'm still a great fan of old Talisman [from the same stable as Fury of Dracula - make sure you get the old version, the new one is crap and expensive to boot] and in that game you could be a Ghoul in one of the expansions. And ghouls and vampires, as we all know, are really basically the same thing in folklore. i've got the vampire card game that someone else mentions in this thread but i agree with the poster that it is fairly ordinary. A better card/board game with vampires is Xxxenophile [Bites-on-the-Neck is the only one whose, erm, name i recall]. White Wolf are supposed to be bringing out a Vampire: The Masquerade-themed board game called Prince of the City sometime. i hope they do. And as a comment on Andrew's post and some of the replies there are TWO Buffy games, one of which is pretty terrible [so i'm told] while the other is quite good. Finally, White Wolf brought out a miniatures skirmish game called Trinity: Battleground to complement their Aeon: Trinity RPG. Since the mechanics of Aeon are fairly classic storyteller stuff [ie the same framework as VtM] it should be easy to map vampires onto the Trinity: Battleground system. A less charitable person than myself might conclude that GW had already done this with their latest Vampire Counts book [check out the clans to see what i mean].

BernieTime wrote: > > I believe that WotC screwed up by releasing it as "JYHAD" in the first place. > > Adkinson (or whomever) attempted to correct this Marketing problem > by changing the card backs. Personally I'm glad he did, as VAMPIRE > resonates with the general public much more so than JYHAD. No offense, Bernie, but one is tempted to ask if you *like* getting ripped off? Maybe you weren't one of the victims but let me assure you, going out and buying a bunch of cards for a collectible game and having the manufacturer suddenly say, "OK, we're gonna reprint the main set with different card backs AND we're only going to print expansions with the type of card backs *YOU* *DON'T* *HAVE*!!!" Congratulations! You bought their product as your reward, now you're screwed! Now in retrospect, opaque card backs have made the issue all better. At the time, they didn't exist and it wasn't clear that such a thing would get sold on the open market. Playing with mixed card backs is not all right. Frankly, it screws up the game. It's like playing with traditional cards (like poker cards or bridge or something) with cards from differently backed decks. > Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun > Friend: What's it called > Bernie: Jyhad > Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something > completely different] Yea, well this actually happen or is it more of Adkison's PC fantasies? There's nothing here to actually be offended about. If "Jyhad" turned out to mean, "West Slobodians Suck!" in some currently used language or something, I'd be a little more sympathetic. The argument put forth by Adkison simply does not justify what he did. > As I stated, it was most likely a change based on Marketing reasons. > Unless you have some memo that states otherwise.. We have Peter Adkison's word that the change was for politically correct reasons. He wrote a whole long post about it in this newsgroup. The marketing reasons were secondary. In fact, the card back change ultimately *hurt* the game in marketing terms, as could be predicted. The last thing you'd want to do with a game is offend and piss off all the first wave of players who bought it. Fred

In message <9j8dl...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >> "Why? Rumors have been flying about the FRPG >> Standards and Practices Guidelines' impact on V:tES. " >> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:39:32 -0800 > >Sorry... what is the 'FRPG'? Five Rings Publishing Group. Where Dancey, Lo5R etc. were prior to the Wizards buy-out. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote: >Didn't TSR many many many years ago put out a set of mini-games with boards >and chits and such. I remember one called Saga, and one called Revolt (or >Assault) on Antares and one called Vampire. TSR, Mayfair, and Steve Jackson all released "pocket box" games on vampire themes in the space of a year--TSR's _Vampyre!_ (1981, designed by P. Schlaffer), Steve Jackson's _Undead_ (1982, designed by Steve Jackson), and Mayfair's _Transylvania_ (1981, designed by N. Zimmerer). -- Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com Games are my entire waking life

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:35:47 -0400, Wes wrote: >> "Why? Rumors have been flying about the FRPG >> Standards and Practices Guidelines' impact on V:tES. " >> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:39:32 -0800 > >Sorry... what is the 'FRPG'? Five Ring Publishing Group - the publisher of L5R which was taken over by WotC (a deal which Ryan arranged). They already had a stable of games - L5R, LBS, Doomtown and Rage - in various states of development. WoTC orphans like VTES were put in this group too and probably suffered mainly because they were not-invented-here. If Adkison and Garfield had wanted to see more support give to VTES they could have made this happen. Instead they gave it to Dancey and it was his job to decide whether it was worth pursuing. He decided that it wasn't. It was his call and his only mistake seems to have been explaining his reasons for making it. Note that he was responsible for many games, not just VTES. One of these games was Rage which he was trying to revive after White Wolf had canned it. This makes him one of the good guys, IMO. Now that the suits have fully taken over at WotC, not one of these games has survived their purge. VTES wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds of Hasbro's scrutiny and so its return to White Wolf was a good outcome. Just hope that WW don't drop the game like they did Rage as Dancey won't be there to try and save it. Andrew

In message <8010858C63FEA04F.74E05D44...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >If Adkison and Garfield had wanted to see more support give to VTES >they could have made this happen. Instead they gave it to Dancey V:TES was packaged off to Dancey as part of a job-lot of "minor" brands. Having all the "classic" games handled by one over-seeing administrator makes some business sense. (Of course, other models are also possible.) > and >it was his job to decide whether it was worth pursuing. He decided >that it wasn't. Dancey decided that he didn't want to pursue it, whether it was worth it or not. This is entirely different. Your lack of understanding of the entire situation is showing through. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote >> >> Well, if you play computer games, I'll plug Master of Magic again >> (thought I think you already praised that one), and Thief/Thief2. Thief > is >> head and shoulders above any of the competition, in theme, original >> mechanics, and immersion. Especially immersion; which requires playing in >> total darkness, but the sneaking in the shadows permits zero screen glare. >> =) > > Yeah, I loved Thief. I haven't tried Part Deux yet but the first one was a > riot. It *far* surpassed all those silly 3rd-P-Shooter games which frankly > bore the piss out of me. The second is a bit "more of the same," and it loses some of the mystique, because you've figured out the mechanics already. ("That guy can't see me from there...") However, it is worth playing as a collection of some of the best Thief levels ever made (most notably, the planting of evidence in a police station evidence locker, and the trip across the "thieves' highway" from rooftop to rooftop. =) And, the continuation of the plot is also very neat; similar in ways, but totally opposite in others. Highly recommended for anyone who played Thief. > Another game by the same designers that you might want to check out is > System Shock II. Wonderful game. It is a 3rd-PS game as well technically, > but involves character development and is *far* more scary than Thief ever > was. This game kicked my ass it was so scary. Would that I had time to play it. I got it for my birthday *last* year, and still haven't played it. *sigh* It's on my list, though. I've got a copy of the original System Shock, as well, that I'd kind of like to play first. >> Anyway, Master of Magic is the single most replayable game of all > time. >> I still play it, and it offers everything Civilization does and much, much >> more. While Thief is in my top5, MoM is #1, easy. > > Aye... it badly needs to be remade. I'd throw the original X-Com on my top 5 > as well. I don't ever think it will, since all such cries have been totally ignored. =( I played X-Com2 and not 1, but it's the same thing, really. I'd put it in top 10. Started Xcom Apocalypse, and that was pretty fun. And notably different from XCom1, unlike 2. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun > > Friend: What's it called > > Bernie: Jyhad > > Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something > > completely different] > > Yea, well this actually happen or is it more of Adkison's PC fantasies? > There's nothing here to actually be offended about. If "Jyhad" turned out > to mean, "West Slobodians Suck!" in some currently used language or something, > I'd be a little more sympathetic. The argument put forth by Adkison simply > does not justify what he did. Not to make excuses for the guy, but I did have this come up last summer when a friend of mine on leave from the IDF came to town and I taught him my favorite past-time. The look on his face when he came to a Jyhad backed card was... interesting. Cameron

Wes wrote: > > But it's just so much easier to say than Vampire: the Eternal Struggle. > Hell, even the initials V.T.E.S. take more time to say than the two > syllables Jee-Hadd. And you can't call it Vampire because then people think > you're referring to the RPG or worse, the LARP, or maybe even Dark Ages. > > <sigh> > > From now on I'll just call it 'That Game'. You mean you don't say "Vee-tess"? That's what we do (when we're not saying "Jee-hahd". James -- | James Hamblin | University of Wisconsin -- Madison | | ham...@math.wisc.edu | Grad. Student, Dept. of Mathematics |

>BernieTime wrote: >> >> I believe that WotC screwed up by releasing it as "JYHAD" in the first >place. >> >> Adkinson (or whomever) attempted to correct this Marketing problem >> by changing the card backs. Personally I'm glad he did, as VAMPIRE >> resonates with the general public much more so than JYHAD. >No offense, Bernie, but one is tempted to ask if you *like* getting ripped off? None taken Fred, as long as folks are civil anyhow. >Maybe you weren't one of the victims but let me assure you, going out and >buying a bunch of cards for a collectible game and having the manufacturer > suddenly say, "OK, we're gonna reprint the main set with different card >backs AND we're only going to print expansions with the type of card > backs *YOU* *DON'T* *HAVE*!!!" Congratulations! You bought their > product as your reward, now you're screwed! A friend and I preordered and split a box of Jyhad when it was first released, as we (other friends and I) were having great fun with Magic:TG at the time. Actually rather comical when we split the box after sorting, think more cards were chosen based on artwork as neither of us understood the game at the time. Oh, and the coveted "First Strike" cards. After trying to figure out the rulebook, my Jyhad cards ended up sitting on the shelf for over a year. My friend Jason entered our gaming circle and knew how the game was supposed to play, so we started playing Jyhad and Magic lost it's luster (this would be around Legends). So unlike others, we did not have much money involved in Jyhad at the time. When they changed the backs, it didn't really matter much to us. After all, it's just a game we played with our friends. Had there been any kind of structured tournament environment at that time, then maybe I'd have felt different about things. >Now in retrospect, opaque card backs have made the issue all better. At the >time, they didn't exist and it wasn't clear that such a thing would get sold >on the open market. Playing with mixed card backs is not all right. >Frankly, it screws up the game. It's like playing with traditional cards > (like poker cards or bridge or something) with cards from differently backed > decks. Yet there ARE some fun card games you can play with poker decks, which require about 6-8 decks to play. If anyone's interested I'd be willing to teach "Hoof" at GenCon. >> Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun >> Friend: What's it called >> Bernie: Jyhad >> Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something >> completely different] I had the conversation above, verbatim. It was at that point where whenever I talk about the game nowadays describe it as "A collectible card similar to Pokemon, except it's more for adults containing many layers of strategy". <Snipped some griping> > >> As I stated, it was most likely a change based on Marketing reasons. >> Unless you have some memo that states otherwise.. > >We have Peter Adkison's word that the change was for politically correct >reasons. He wrote a whole long post about it in this newsgroup. The >marketing reasons were secondary. In fact, the card back change ultimately >*hurt* the game in marketing terms, as could be predicted. The last thing >you'd want to do with a game is offend and piss off all the first wave of >players who bought it. > >Fred I believe most of the folks in my playgroup purchased the majority of thier cards post-Jyhad. And the 60/40 rule was very well received within my circle. Just my perspective after becoming a competative player later in the games life-cycle. Bernie

"James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote > You mean you don't say "Vee-tess"? That's what we do (when we're not > saying "Jee-hahd". Well, yee-hah! I'll say that then :) I'm less embarrassed about saying the name than I am showing people the cards. "Why does this laptop have a severed hand on it?" Cheers, WES P.S. Welcome back, James.

evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com wrote: >>You guys are incorrigible fanboys who just can't stand to hear anyone >>dis your beloved vamps. I'm reminded of that wonderful Buffy episode, >>"Lie to Me", in which the Scoobies meet up with some dreamy goths: > > some clueless individual is going to look at this > thread in the future and say "Wow, he's right." Wow, he's right. > (right after saying "It's Unix ... I _know_ this!" ) It's Unix ... I _know_ this! *grin* Regards, Noal McDonald Global Unix Support Analyst

> Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card > > games *must* be sold this way. > > VTES is not just a "constructable" card game. It is a _collectible_ > card game and a _trading_ card game. As such, absolutely it must be > sold that way. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. VTES is not a collectible card game, as noted in previous posts to this thread. To continue to think of it as so, is silly. A *Trading* card game implies that there is trading, not collectability. White wolf even says "Vampire: The Eternal StruggleTM is a trading card game" Because you want to collect something, doesn't make it collectable. Some people have sets of used underware, but that doesn't make your boxers collectable. > Selling a set of cards in such a a manner as to make them equally > accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus > destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors. There are literally thousands of non-game cards that are distributed without rarity. They are still valuable to people that want to buy them. For example, ever heard of something called baseball cards? *GASP* They have been sold for years on end. Only recently have people tried to cash in with chase cards. There is no reason a trading card of any type need include rarity to exist. > Notice that this is much different than Lunch Money. When was the last > time that you saw individual Lunch Money cards being auctioned on > e-bay? Lunch money is not designed with any custimization in mind. You cannot just take all the humiliations out of 3 stacks and make a super humiliation deck.(and play the game properly) > > It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/deckbuilding games > > and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. > > True. But selling a card set as a complete set and selling it a > collectible set _are_ mutually exclusive. To believe otherwise is to > demonstrate complete naivete regarding the economics of the secondary > market and how it affects the profitibility of CCGs. White wolf isn't selling the singles, and has no economic interest in the secondary market. You aren't selling singles and have no economic interest in the secondary market. Not all games have strong secondary markets. Some guy reselling your product doesn't mean that you will sell more, or that it will do well. > The only reason one would issue collectible cards as a set is because > the cards are no longer in print, there is sufficient demand for them > and the company no longer has interest in marketing *those* cards as > collectible. That is not to say that future expansions on that set > cannot be marketed as collectible. Again, there have been multiple game issued in full sets, or setlike forms that have been selling for ages. Example: Knightmare chess has been selling since 1986. You buy full sets, and customize as needed. If you want 10 fireballs, yes you will have to get 10 of every card, but so what? There are only 80 cards, but only wizards and after have decided that the only way to sell a set is the 3 card sheet method. It would be very easy to issue smaller, less game altering sets. Using a single sheet, with all the cards on them. Packaging them either as a set, or randomly will have no difference. Buy a few and you have all you need to play, or collect. Have 2 sheets, one uncommon one common. Change the distribution to be more equal, while maintaining your beloved rares. If you are buying 15 cards, there is plenty of room for 3 rares/5 uncommons/7 commons. More commons then uncommons, more uncommons then rares. What is the balance that people are trying to maintain? It doesn't cost white wolf any more to print disarms then twisting the knife. It doesn't do them any better to have hard to find rares with high secondary market values. Whats the point in making it harder for people to play the game? Remember it's a game before it's collectable(there are plently of non-game collectable cards) Aaron.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >If Adkison and Garfield had wanted to see more support give to VTES >they could have made this happen. Instead they gave it to Dancey and >it was his job to decide whether it was worth pursuing. He decided >that it wasn't. It was his call and his only mistake seems to have >been explaining his reasons for making it. Thats true. His one other mistake was picking the wrong horse. Rage is/was seriously lacking in quantity and cohesiveness to its underground following... My read on Dancey was that he was making "pretty story" arguments to get people off his back... I doubt he believed half the things he wrote about motivations for choosing to pursue Rage or VTES. In all likelihood, Dancey made his decisions upon grounds that he chose not to disclose (marketing research, whatever) to us "fanboys ;-)" and was weaving yarns to get the general populace off his back. Shame it had the opposite effect... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

Noal McDonald wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card > > games *must* be sold this way. > > VTES is not just a "constructable" card game. It is a _collectible_ > card game and a _trading_ card game. As such, absolutely it must be > sold that way. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. OK, Noal. But you're going to have stretch a little to work with people like Jason when they suggest doing something a different way. There is no particular reason that VTES *must* be a "collectible" card game nor a "trading" card game - other than the fact that it was started that way and to change it now would be a ripoff to people who paid what they paid for their various cards under that understanding. If that's not what you meant then to simply do it otherwise from the start does not strike me as ludicrous. > Selling a set of cards in such a a manner as to make them equally > accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus > destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors. Assuming we're discussing how it would have worked to start it out that way and not convert now, I don't see your problem. You're right. Selling a set of card in such a manner as to make them equally accessible reduces their value in the secondary market, not to nil but in terms of the usual discount for used game components. But still, that would certainly reduce the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors, as you say. And? So???? Please explain the actual problem here. You wind up with a game which is just a game and not a collectible game. Its value is to people who want to play a game. Lots of games exist like that. > Notice that this is much different than Lunch Money. When was the last > time that you saw individual Lunch Money cards being auctioned on > e-bay? Well, I've never gone to look. I own two copies and that's as many as I need. The fact that I own two copies is the point. That shows that non- collectible games are a sellable product that people spend money on, which is all that's necessary for the capitalists. > > It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/deckbuilding games > > and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. > > True. But selling a card set as a complete set and selling it a > collectible set _are_ mutually exclusive. Oh, absolutely. But I'm confused. Who was arguing about that point? A deckbuilding game doesn't need to be collectible. I mean, you'd still have your collections to build decks with. But it wouldn't be "collectible" in the sense of having limited- print-run artificially inflated values attributed to it. I was just pointing out that there's no need for that. Fred

In message <68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes >Since the mechanics of Aeon are fairly classic storyteller stuff [ie >the same framework as VtM] it should be easy to map vampires onto the >Trinity: Battleground system. (Moving into RPG weirdness.) This isn't quite true (though it might as well be, maybe). (Not including some of the changes between 2nd and 3rd re: botches.) The whole dots things still exists, but a lot of the dice-rolling rules are quite different. The dot thing is probably most important for mapping, but the rules are quite interestingly changed. e.g. VtM a variable target number (difficult) for the dice, below which is a fail, else it's a success. Then count the successes. Aeon changes this to a system whereby the target number is fixed, but the number of successes you need to get is varied. VtM generally requires the Storyteller to make arbitrary decisions a lot of the time about traits. (e.g. "Hmmm.... you're going to have to sing for a long time and be damn good at it to shatter all these glasses. Roll Stamina + Performance.") Whilst you *can* do this Aeon, it prefers to default to tying them all in to the most useful ones. The subtle changes, where a Storyteller might think "Hmmm.... Let's have Charisma + Leadership instead of Manipulation + Leadership" are less likely to occur if you have a mind-set of "This normally goes with this, I need to justify my deviation." It's mostly just fiddling round the edges, but it makes things a bit more tricky when you start trying to cross the two over. But then, crossing things over in White Wolf games always was kinda kooky. (This has a difficult of the target's Humanity. Hmm.... He's a Changeling. Erm?) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "Surely somewhere out there there's a woman who's EBD690ECD7A1F been sodomized by her father and is capable of B457CA213D7E6 composing a few coherent sentences on the subject." 68C3695D623D5D

A major digression... Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news: <CCG that have tried other player-friendly pack-outs - > Xxxenophile, INWO, Rolling Thunder - have all flopped. Just be glad > that the game doesn't have ultra-rares too. > > Andrew I know this is an old(er) post, but I felt the need to point out what someone had mentioned earlier -- TCGs fail for a variety of reasons. I am very familiar with L5R and INWO. Rolling Thunder (a format AEG was using for L5R and a few other games) was indeed over-easy to collect for collectors, but what really hurt it was the horrible way it was distributed. (The Powers That Be had a lengthy post about it -- none of the distributors understood how it was going to work.) A more clear example of secondary issues hurting a game is with INWO. The Factory Set -- the complete basic set -- stimulated game sales. Collectors *still* bought cards, while players shelled out for the whole deal. Trick is, you need duplicates to play INWO, lots of them (sound familiar?), so players bought boosters, too. I can't make even a portion of my most capable or fun decks with my two factory sets. Throw in the boosters and it all works. (INWO would do fine to have only two rarities -- common and rare -- and the synergy of the Factory set with random cards supports this assertion. The Factory Sets really only provide the hard-to-get, generally unique cards.) What killed INWO was horrible support from SJG. Its first expansion was bantam in scope. It didn't have the flavor that many people were expecting -- it didn't look enough like a conspiracy game. The second expansion killed the game dead. Many people love that the SubGenius expansion was a boxed set -- but they didn't give a damn about SubGenius. It would be equivalent to making a VtES expansion about fast food. Sounds amusing, but it would not be a good thing. Combine this with poor support on other fronts (which I won't get into) and we have our culprit: Steve Jackson killed INWO -- killed it but good, he did. Boxed sets work, and they don't hurt collectability as long as the card faces are CLEARLY different from the randomly sorted packs. INWO was never that popular, admittedly, but until after Assassins (the first expansion) its sales were continually increasing. Note that the Factory Set cards were completely different in color than the randomized ones, making them visually distinct -- this is essential. People were still, obsessively, attempting to collect a set or two of a game not many people played and completely ignored the Factory set. I have no data on whether or not the Factory Set influenced the singles market, unfortunately. Anecdotally, I can say that INWO players I was aware of bought singles to increase the number of duplicates in decks (to avoid having to buy a Factory Set for just two cards -- the inverse of why we buy singles for games without such sets) or to complete sets in the first place. That is not empirical evidence, only experience. Still (to go beyond speaking of INWO or Rolling Thunder), I have seen no examples of the reprint of a card in any game -- especially when the reprint is in a different format (color or art changes, for example) -- having a detrimental effect on the singles market, even less the set sales itself. The value of the original card for collectors was in its rarity, not its playability. Similarly, foils of rares that take up rare slots encourage collectors without hurting players. This holds for my experience, and for the games I play. You may now return to your scheduled haughty and snappish postings. :-) -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** Velilind's Laws of Experimentation: (1) If reproducibility may be a problem, conduct the test only once. (2) If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data.

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.0107...@posting.google.com>... > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card > > games *must* be sold this way. > > VTES is not just a "constructable" card game. It is a _collectible_ > card game and a _trading_ card game. As such, absolutely it must be > sold that way. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. The collectability of VtES is a secondary byproduct of its having many components that are individually sold. No WoTC TCG is marketed as a CCG. Selling a set of game components that are independent of the components that collectors are buying is not ludicrous, especialy if the sets are clearly in a different format than the non-set components. As a matter of fact, it generates sales as the manufacurer can now sell such components in bulk, defraying costs. > Selling a set of cards in such a a manner as to make them equally > accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus > destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors. Do explain Heroes of Rokugan, a very, very small set of cards sold in L5R. Singles from HoR sale ludicrously well. Many players found the set utterly abhorrent because of the price. Collectors -- *collectors* -- often broke the rules and created false accounts to buy more sets than they were technically allowed. The cost of HoR was around $80 -- for about 20 cards. WotC limited its own profit on the set by limiting the print run and accessibility to the set; it would have successfuly sold the set if it had printed the set several times over. This is not a happy example of what sets do to a game, IMHO, but it is an example of sets making lots of money for the parent company without killing the game. > Notice that this is much different than Lunch Money. When was the last > time that you saw individual Lunch Money cards being auctioned on > e-bay? Lunch Money has no components which can add to or modify the game. There is no reason to sell individual cards in Lunch Money because additional copies of cards in Lunch Money do not add to the enjoyment of the game. In fact, they hurt the game. (Twenty extra copies of Humuliation is funny for the first minute, then it gets stupid, fast.) With a TCG, multiple copies of cards can and do add to variability and, thus, enjoyment of the game, moreso if the game in question does not have card limits. > > It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/deckbuilding games > > and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. > > True. But selling a card set as a complete set and selling it a > collectible set _are_ mutually exclusive. This statement is completely false. If the components differ, even slightly, in a set and in the random assortment, then the two products are different. If your assertion was true, foiled versions of cards would be considered exactly the same as normal cards they represent by collectors. In addition, as we have already mentioned, VtES is not marketed as presenting a collectable set. >To believe otherwise is to > demonstrate complete naivete regarding the economics of the secondary > market and how it affects the profitibility of CCGs. To make blanket statements like the above is not a little arrogant and very off-putting. :-) (It might be best if we comment upon arguments and statements made and not make accusations, like the implied insults within the previous poster's and my own comment above. Of course, I'm guilty of it even as I disparage it, but I'm pretty sure I'm an immature jerk which puts it in-character.) > The only reason one would issue collectible cards as a set is because > the cards are no longer in print, there is sufficient demand for them > and the company no longer has interest in marketing *those* cards as > collectible. That is not to say that future expansions on that set > cannot be marketed as collectible. Um, again, VtES isn't marked as collectable, ever. And, again, reprints have never hurt the collectability of a previous set as, well, collectors can read and they will consider the reprints to be separate entities, distinct from previous sets. I understand that they call such reprints, um, reprints. If reprints are a part of a new set, collectors buy the new set and the reprints as part of that set (without those reprints, the new set is not complete). Players have increased access to old cards at the expense of not having a brand, new card where the old one would be -- a price that players are willing to pay, depending upon the play-quality of the old card. Neither side is hurt if this is handled well. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** A woman has a child every two seconds. We must find this woman and stop her.

In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes >Do explain Heroes of Rokugan, a very, very small set of cards sold in >L5R. Singles from HoR sale ludicrously well. Many players found the >set utterly abhorrent because of the price. Collectors -- *collectors* >-- often broke the rules and created false accounts to buy more sets >than they were technically allowed. The cost of HoR was around $80 -- >for about 20 cards. WotC limited its own profit on the set by limiting >the print run and accessibility to the set; it would have successfuly >sold the set if it had printed the set several times over. > >This is not a happy example of what sets do to a game, IMHO, but it is >an example of sets making lots of money for the parent company without >killing the game. This sort of thing, however, works to undermine one of Jyhad's founding principles - that any given card should be usable in a deck up to the maximum deck limit. In a game where you can only use 1 (in the case of a number of games with Uniques with 1/deck limits) or 4 or 5, selling limited run sets isn't such a problem. Jyhad internally handles such issues very, very differently. Out of interest (having played Lo5R once or twice, never really getting into it, and finding it a bit like creating a table-cloth out of cards at times), how many of that set were Uniques, Events or Experienced (he said, fiddling with an old rulebook), such that only 1 could be used? I'm guessing the proportion is fairly high, so I'd be interested to be proved wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<8DF8AF9D716EB7C3.598E3CE0...@lp.airnews.net>... > Folk here love to pound on Dancey because he had the temerity to leave > VTES in the state that he found it. Given that the game was a basket > case at that point, that was a sensible move. His point about the > players being one-sidedly evil was a good one from a marketing > perspective as that obviously limits its appeal. Yeah, any time I want to sell something, I like to limit the potential consumer base to as little as possible. RD: "Don't buy this game kid, it'll turn you into a one-sidedly evil, morally deplorable, one-sidedly evil nasty person." (Kid reaches for booster packs) RD: "No... DON'T buy this game." Best marketing ploy I ever did hear. *** Marketing note: "Limit Appeal" - reccomend to boys in marketing dept. ***

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:59:18 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:16:01 GMT, evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com wrote: > >>some clueless individual is going to look at this >>thread in the future and say "Wow, he's right." > >Can't have that can we. Not when you go off trolling like that. >His point about the >players being one-sidedly evil was a good one from a marketing >perspective as that obviously limits its appeal. I don't know if you were attempting to troll here, but I agree completely. I tend to take the angle that it wasn't in WOTC's best interest to actually grow their licensced CCG work. The scenario seems clear: Firm A is first entrant into the widget production, and gains superior market position. It then acts as an outsourcer to design and produce widgets for other firms B,C, and D. It is in Firm A's best interest (regulatory and contractual issues aside) to undercut B, C, and D, to maintain their market share. It's a situation analagous to "fox designing the henhouse." As such, it may or may not have been Dancey's job as individual project/product manager to limit sales of the game to make M:tG look better. That's totally speculation on my part, but it generally fits as a piece to the above scenario.

On 20 Jul 2001 20:39:51 -0700, Lemar Johnson wrote: >Still (to go beyond speaking of INWO or Rolling Thunder), I have seen >no examples of the reprint of a card in any game -- especially when >the reprint is in a different format (color or art changes, for >example) -- having a detrimental effect on the singles market, even >less the set sales itself. The value of the original card for >collectors was in its rarity, not its playability. How about: Ting Ting in Shadowfist The Drifter in Doomtown Dreams of the Sphynx in VTES These were all highly prized rares which were subsequently reprinted as fixed cards in starters. The Netherworld Ting Ting used to be a $50 card. I doubt you'd get that much for it now, even though it has different art. Andrew

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > So when did Carl Schurz emigrate to America? Immaterial to my point, or the underlying truth of the idea. > It is actually more like the baseball card business except you > get to play with the cards. Sometimes you get Sammy Sosa. > Sometimes you get Koko...er Jeff Bagwell. Yeah, but at least you get gum. Mmmmm, gum. You know, gum is one of those products that you don't actually need, so it's just fine for gum + card manufacturers to charge $4 for it. If baseball cards no longer come with gum, I don't want to hear about it. I loved that powdered sugar or flour that they packaged it with such that you suspected that the cards were actually coated with cocaine to make you buy more. > Also could you please respond to my above thread on the weaknesses of > marketing sets? Sorry, I missed a few articles as I was doing my best to dodge posts I suspected were purely flames (though I failed at ignoring those for the most part, too). Please regurgitate the basic points, and I'd be more than happy to address them. I've really tried hard to address every substantive objection, and am surprised that I must have missed one of yourn. - Jason Bell (I really, really need to stop reading usenet while plastered.)

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There are > > several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are > > referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? > > Titan , the monster slugathon game, rocks! It just takes as long as a game of > chess or VTES to play. Titan: The Monster Slugathon Fantasy Wargame XZealot, please turn in your geek badge as you leave. I once left a game of Titan to go to sleep, only to wake up the next ahem, afternoon to find my roomate and a houseguest still playing it. That game should not be tampered with unless you have at the very least 5 hours to dispose of. And it's not the sort of 5 hours which require all players to conspire to continue the game (like Illuminati board game, which invariably seems to end when the player currently responsible for stopping the current coup-de-gras just allows it to happen out of fatigue or resentment of all the other players), it can just take that long as a matter of course. Hmmm, I rolled a 5, let's see all the different ways each of my 6 units can move about the board. For my money, when I'm tired of meddling in the affairs of my fellow Methuselahs, I turn to Iron Dragon (crayons aren't just for kids anymore, and it's fun to find out how bad your friends are at simple math when they lose in the first two turns) or Settlers of Cataan (only the most dedicated strategic player can turn that into a conflict game). Also, I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of Modern Art, Medici, Euphrates and Tigris, Aquire, Vinci, Web of Power, and Vino. This list is easy to compile, as it comprises the games that currently are not sitting in the basement. - Jason Bell (You'll pry my geek badge out of my cold, dead fingers, oh, and psionics are broken)

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Noal McDonald wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > The implication you seem to be making is that constructable card > > > games *must* be sold this way. > > > > VTES is not just a "constructable" card game. It is a _collectible_ > > card game and a _trading_ card game. As such, absolutely it must be > > sold that way. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. > > OK, Noal. But you're going to have stretch a little to work with people > like Jason when they suggest doing something a different way. No need. Just have posters like Coupe declare me an idiot, a troll, and ignorant of economics (a claim more hilarious to me than I'll ever tell him). > There is > no particular reason that VTES *must* be a "collectible" card game nor a > "trading" card game - other than the fact that it was started that way > and to change it now would be a ripoff to people who paid what they paid > for their various cards under that understanding. If that's not what you > meant then to simply do it otherwise from the start does not strike me as > ludicrous. There is even less particular reason since the CCG industry has already shifted to a TCG industry with little difficulty once confronted with its own desires to re-print cards for its own profit, and shifted yet again to a known-quantity card game industry with pre-con decks (ever since M:tG's pre-con's for Tempest, if I recall correctly). Even early M:tG dabbled with sets, though not in tourney-legal format (though V:tES will likely never even try that, as most casual players will accept any new distinctive card backs as just another in a long line of card-back changes). > > Selling a set of cards in such a a manner as to make them equally > > accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus > > destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors. > > Assuming we're discussing how it would have worked to start it out that > way and not convert now, I don't see your problem. You're right. Selling > a set of card in such a manner as to make them equally accessible reduces > their value in the secondary market, not to nil but in terms of the usual > discount for used game components. But still, that would certainly reduce > the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors, as you say. Not neccessarily. Selling sets merely stabilizes secondary markets for any card. If the sets are in-print, the maximum value of any card or any group of cards is easily determined (as it is currently with Dreams of the Sphinx), while individual cards within that set can stil vary, though with an inihibited range (limited by the current desirability of other cards in the set and total set price). Setting all that aside, I distinctly remember Tom Wylie loudly complaining that what Noal claims to be vital was never a goal nor in any way an intended consequence of the Deckmaster card distribution formula (This was way back during M:tG's painful transitioning from a CCG to a TCG, during an online discussion of reprints) > > > It is not necessary the that the concepts of constructable/deckbuilding games > > > and tradable/randomly assorted cards in pack be joined at the hip. > > > > True. But selling a card set as a complete set and selling it a > > collectible set _are_ mutually exclusive. > > Oh, absolutely. Maybe, but there are no CCG's, so this is a moot point. Even if it were a CCG, as long as the print run were limited (even in very large instances of limited), the set is still in some sense collectible. But even so... Since we're talking TCG's, the fact that game pieces can be used in ways other than fixed proportions, some game pieces have more functionality (at least to some players), so while sets can ease the work of consumers who merely want to collect one of each card, they maintain tradability for those who want more copies of certain cards than other cards, so the tradability of the game is maintained. So what you're left with is the argument that sets should not be sold because it would prevent pure collectors from buying a bunch of cards they don't want (and I suppose deny them the enjoyment of spending massive resources in the joy of discovering if their Nth pack has provided the card or cards they need to finish their task), that selling them would harm the secondary market (for which WW earns not one penny), or that offering them would bankrupt WW and destroy V:tES through some mechanism that exists as an article of faith. - Jason Bell

On 19 Jul 2001 04:09:06 -0700, legbiter wrote: >But the issue with Ryan Dancey was his apparent hypocrisy, not his >views about the Lonely Ones. As James C has said, we did not see why >vampires were any more evil than werewolves or than some of the >concepts in Lo5R. I've waded through the Feb 98 postings to VTES-L now and Ryan addressed that point: >> Now where exactly does this differ from V:tES? >VtES: You are evil >Rage: You fight against evil >Comprende? Having looked at Rage now, this is a fair point - the Garou are heroic defenders of Gaia against the servants of the evil Wyrm - Pentex, the Vampires etc. More generally, what happened was that Ryan posted a press release concerning the future of all the FRPG games to their various lists. VTES's fate was to be put on indefinite hold and the list then engaged in a futile exercise of shooting the messenger. Here are two pertinent Dancey quotes: >I really like the VtES game. I bought a whole lot of Jyhad cards, and I >played it to the point of being able to effectively oppose random opponents >at cons and such. I think it has an amazingly well designed set of >mechanics, I think it has a lot of depth and richness. While it has been a >few years since I played it >last<, I do have some history with the game. >My current situation as the responsible party post-dates my experience with >the game as a fan. >Again: The issue regarding VtES is it's poor performance in the >marketplace. That poor performance is the reason there is no active VtES >development ongoing. My personal and professional concern regarding the >brand is a secondary problem for the VtES product line. There were a few voices of sanity but mostly the opposition was a lot of fanboy ranting. LSJ's contribution was a petty nitpick of a typing error. I'm afraid it's the fans that come out this looking bad. Dancey was and is a professional who knew his job and tried to reason with you like adults. Continuing to malign him is just more childish spite. Andrew

In message <M5c67.191444$Md.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >No need. Just have posters like Coupe declare me an idiot, a troll, >and ignorant of economics (a claim more hilarious to me than I'll >ever tell him). I don't give a fuck if you have a piece of paper from anywhere saying "I woz gud at eekonommics" or anything like that. When you act in the way you do, you will get characterised in the way you have been. On Usenet, no-one either knows or cares if you're a dog. Your posts are what count. HTH HAND FUCKWIT [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2e1eea41.0107...@posting.google.com>, Jim Parker <jack...@hotmail.com> writes >*** Marketing note: "Limit Appeal" - reccomend to boys in marketing >dept. *** White Wolf already have that one sewn up. Young/adolescents, feeling isolated, wanting to take out vengeance on the world, with semi-nudey goth babes. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > gfa...@earthlink.net (George Fagin) wrote in message news:<3237275d.01071...@posting.google.com>... > > >Any other games I should check out? > > > > It is out of print and hard to find, but The Fury of Dracula by Games > > Workshop is well worth the search. > > Agreed, but it was HORRIBLY easy for the Dracula character to cheat in > this game, IME. And even if you didn't cheat there was a way to break > the game by spending lots of time at sea if you were the vampire [i > don't remember the details... < [Snip remainder of message] I don't cheat, and don't play with people who do, so that isn't an issue for me. I suppose one could have Dracula record his moves/placements as in Scotland Yard if you wanted reassurance and didn't mind the hassle. As to spending great amounts of time at sea, Dracula loses a blood point every time he embarks, is at risk from 'Control Storms', and can't place or draw chits while out there. 'Shipping Agents' is a major problem, especially if the port of departure is known to the Hunters. My experience is that a player's perception of which side has the advantage can change back and forth several times as new strategies are developed - the reason I consider it a great game.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3B5842D2...@netcom.com... > BernieTime wrote: > > > > I believe that WotC screwed up by releasing it as "JYHAD" in the first place. > > > > Adkinson (or whomever) attempted to correct this Marketing problem > > by changing the card backs. Personally I'm glad he did, as VAMPIRE > > resonates with the general public much more so than JYHAD. > > No offense, Bernie, but one is tempted to ask if you *like* getting ripped off? > Maybe you weren't one of the victims but let me assure you, going out and buying > a bunch of cards for a collectible game and having the manufacturer suddenly > say, "OK, we're gonna reprint the main set with different card backs AND we're > only going to print expansions with the type of card backs *YOU* *DON'T* > *HAVE*!!!" Congratulations! You bought their product as your reward, now > you're screwed! > > Now in retrospect, opaque card backs have made the issue all better. At the > time, they didn't exist and it wasn't clear that such a thing would get sold > on the open market. Playing with mixed card backs is not all right. Frankly, > it screws up the game. It's like playing with traditional cards (like poker > cards or bridge or something) with cards from differently backed decks. > > > Bernie: Yeah, I play this card game with some friends for fun > > Friend: What's it called > > Bernie: Jyhad > > Friend: [looking at me funny as he's from Israel where it means something > > completely different] > > Yea, well this actually happen or is it more of Adkison's PC fantasies? > There's nothing here to actually be offended about. If "Jyhad" turned out > to mean, "West Slobodians Suck!" in some currently used language or something, > I'd be a little more sympathetic. The argument put forth by Adkison simply > does not justify what he did. > > > As I stated, it was most likely a change based on Marketing reasons. > > Unless you have some memo that states otherwise.. > > We have Peter Adkison's word that the change was for politically correct > reasons. He wrote a whole long post about it in this newsgroup. The > marketing reasons were secondary. In fact, the card back change ultimately > *hurt* the game in marketing terms, as could be predicted. The last thing > you'd want to do with a game is offend and piss off all the first wave of > players who bought it. If anyone cares, here is the original letter..... -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Friends: Hi, this is Mavra, aka Peter, the janitor at Wizards of the Coast. Several of you have written me with your concerns on the name change of our game Jyhad to V:TES, and the subsequent removal of the word Jyhad from the contents of the game. This letter is a response to those letters, and the letters I haven't yet received. This was a tough decision as you can probably imagine. And in truth, I think it was one of those times we as a company genuinely faced a no-win scenario. Making the change seriously risks killing the game and pissing off our customer base. We have never suffered from the delusion that this would somehow help the sales or popularity of the game. Keeping it the way it is, I believe, is immoral. It's as simple as that. I can't have a game like this in my catalog and look my Israeli distributor straight in the eye. I know a lot of you don't feel that there's anything immoral about using the word Jyhad in a game. But our products are reaching new customers and countries that never cared about traditional roleplaying games and such, and may of them disagree. Of course I didn't see this as a problem originally, but I have a middle-class WASP background and spent many years thinking the United States was the center of the universe and that the thoughts of people in the Middle East didn't really matter. Fortunately I met Beverly and she taught me how much of an ass hole I was for thinking that way, and so at the age of twenty-eight I grew up and got a life. Folks, we just can't pull this kind of crap anymore. We're a big company now, selling games all over the world, way outside the niche markets we started in. We have a duty to represent ourselves as a mature company that is sensitive to the political, religious, gender, and ethnic issues that are facing society today. This change is in response to that duty. We could lose millions of dollars over this decision. I don't care. We have to what we think is right. Mavra! (Peter D. Adkison, Janitor, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.) -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- > > Fred Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "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

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > > > >No need. Just have posters like Coupe declare me an idiot, a troll, > >and ignorant of economics (a claim more hilarious to me than I'll > >ever tell him). > > I don't give a f*ck if you have a piece of paper from anywhere saying "I > woz gud at eekonommics" or anything like that. > > When you act in the way you do, you will get characterised in the way > you have been. On Usenet, no-one either knows or cares if you're a dog. > Your posts are what count. Consider for just a moment of how the implications of what you just wrote apply to what you just wrote and to the things you've been saying about me in this thread. Or don't, but I will, and I suspect others will as well. Your behavior in this thread reminds me a bit of how some fans react on the sports newsgroups when someone criticizes their team. For those posters, they have so much of themselves invested in the team they follow that they lash out when that team is criticized, much as you have lashed out at me when I have criticized White Wolf. - Jason Bell

In message <pSj67.192390$Md.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> I don't give a f*ck if you have a piece of paper from anywhere saying "I >> woz gud at eekonommics" or anything like that. >> >> When you act in the way you do, you will get characterised in the way >> you have been. On Usenet, no-one either knows or cares if you're a dog. >> Your posts are what count. > >Consider for just a moment of how the implications of what you >just wrote apply to what you just wrote and to the things you've >been saying about me in this thread. > >Or don't, but I will, and I suspect others will as well. I don't really give a fuck. You sit there ranting and trolling about who White Wolf are fleecing us, a statement which could very easily be considered libellous and defamatory. You attempt to posture with "My diploma supports me in e- mail". In general, you show a complete lack of clue about *anything* and refuse to attempt to learn. You construct straw-men for no purpose, you argue without understanding. In short, you act like a fuckwit showing the same level of understanding as a clever child who's just hit 13 and thinks they know everything. When you continue to fail to absorb any form of clue at all, despite numerous people taking you apart on numerous points, you *will* get treated like a fuckwit. It's real life, deal with it. If you don't want to be continually attacked, in the way the Andrew S. Davidson is for trolling and showing no capacity for clue, try getting a clue. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > Because you want to collect something, doesn't make it collectable. > Some people have sets of used underware, but that doesn't make your > boxers collectable. While I understand no one here admits to collecting used underware, the fact that some people do make them collectable, even if it is to a very small niche market. I understand that all of the following are collectable items: Match books, pencils, lunch boxes, dice, Fast Food Toys, and even yes, used underware. The thing that makes anything colectable is that some one collects it. What does not make something collectable is a title stating that its collectable. Seems that most people, if they are told something is collectable, simply don't bother to collect it. > There are literally thousands of non-game cards that are distributed > without rarity. They are still valuable to people that want to buy > them. For example, ever heard of something called baseball cards? > *GASP* They have been sold for years on end. Only recently have > people tried to cash in with chase cards. There is no reason a > trading card of any type need include rarity to exist. Just because the baseball card fail to have what we call a 'rarity' list, does not mean that all the card from year to year, are printed in anything like equal numbers. They are printed in numbers based on a marketing forcast of whom the company thinks might be most popular. Its when they fail to hit this goal, that makes card go up in value. > White wolf isn't selling the singles, and has no economic interest in > the secondary market. You aren't selling singles and have no economic > interest in the secondary market. Not all games have strong secondary > markets. Some guy reselling your product doesn't mean that you will > sell more, or that it will do well. This is wrong in its assertation. A strong seconday market provides continued availablity, and also advertises the game all for free to the Host company. Thus WW gets increased economic benifits from a secondary market. > What is the balance that people are trying to maintain? It doesn't > cost white wolf any more to print disarms then twisting the knife. It > doesn't do them any better to have hard to find rares with high > secondary market values. Whats the point in making it harder for > people to play the game? Remember it's a game before it's > collectable(there are plently of non-game collectable cards) Not to WW, to them it a commodity to sell. Rare cards of high value in a lively secondary market will generate additional sales without resorting to additional money being spend on marketing. It can lead to new players seeing the market and inquiring about the game. This should mean more new players to play the game with. And Many people have seen the numbers of both the secondary market going up and the numbers of new players going up. Coincidence? I think not. Why? Cause all the Old players have virtually all the cards the need from the old sets, yet even Jyhad card singles are being successfully sold in the secondary market. So who is buying them? I do not have any figures, but circumstantial evidence points to the increase in new players. Raille

Jason Bell wrote: > Maybe, but there are no CCG's, so this is a moot point. > Even if it were a CCG, as long as the print run were > limited (even in very large instances of limited), the > set is still in some sense collectible. But even so... > > Since we're talking TCG's, the fact that game pieces > can be used in ways other than fixed proportions, some > game pieces have more functionality (at least to some > players), so while sets can ease the work of consumers > who merely want to collect one of each card, they maintain > tradability for those who want more copies of certain > cards than other cards, so the tradability of the game > is maintained. > I belive that all the card games fall into the Title of Collectable. Tradeable card games seem to imply that I can trade Lo5R cards for VTES cards and use them interchangeably in my decks. Also see my earlier post on collections. Raille

Going back to what I brought up earlier, I recall that the comparision of ww doing single print cards to e-books was made. This should have been a reference to the current Book printing technology being developed that allows publishers to print 'A' book on demand, thus virtually eliminating having to maintain any inventory. With out any good tech facts ect. I hereby postulate. If WW were to set up, train 2-3 people to run a printing machine, and they spent 250K doing so,how long might it take to generate a profit. Take care to remember that currently a single card sells for .25c US. This is the price out of the pack. On this .25c per card WW makes suitable profit to continue doing sales in card packs. Out of this .25c you must remove the cost for the printing company, you have to remove the cost for the distributer, and you have to remove the cost that the store owner gets. So without going into a few other nibles into that .25c per card, you have WW getting 1/4 of the value of a card. 6c. Now if the print on demand cards were a completely new and different set of cards, and also had the avialablity of old cards, they could do cards of high power, and simply charge 50$ each. Of course I do not support high powered cards simple to generate $$, but take that 250K figure. if currently unavailable rare card were sold at 5$ each on a order to order basis, they would completely break even after 50,000 cards. If you take this as a multiple year investment, say over 5 years, then 250K needs to be increased by the 3 employees printing cards, say 80K a year, time 5 years, or 400K. This gets you 650K in costs to be recovered. So 26,000 cards each year breaks even and anything over that becomes profit. Of course this does not taking into account a lot of variables, depreciation, retraining blah, blah,blah, ect ect ect. So, this print on demand is feasable and currently available with standard technology. It can be done, IF it wants to be done. Costs could be shifted away from WW by utilizing the printer and their equipment, especially a printer already getting into the print on demand book market. It is feasably, and it is afforadable. The only reason it has not been done yet is that it requires a new train og thought, a new marketing schedule and most importantly, the ability to LEAD. Raille Thinking outside the box. Cause I can't play with my cards INSIDE the box!

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Aye... it badly needs to be remade. I'd throw the original X-Com on my top 5 > > as well. > I don't ever think it will, since all such cries have been totally > ignored. =( > I played X-Com2 and not 1, but it's the same thing, really. I'd put it > in top 10. Started Xcom Apocalypse, and that was pretty fun. And notably > different from XCom1, unlike 2. Top 5 games for me are Xcom, Xcom2 Xcom Apocalypse, Age of Empires and Zork Raille

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > There were a few voices of sanity but mostly the opposition was a lot > of fanboy ranting. LSJ's contribution was a petty nitpick of a typing > error. I'm afraid it's the fans that come out this looking bad. > Dancey was and is a professional who knew his job and tried to reason > with you like adults. Continuing to malign him is just more childish > spite. Nothing wrong with that. So long as I'm willing to admit that its spite. And it is. I don't like him, I don't like what he did, and I will never be made to believe that what he did was not done spitefully in the first place. Of course I live in the midwest (USA) and have to contend with Christians. They always tell everyone else just how others should live, and do it in a spiteful way to boot. And you can reason with them till your blue in the face and it only gets you blue in the face. Raille I want some luthrans.

In message <4C7C56AB2E2681FE.71506271...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Dancey was and is a professional who knew his job and tried to reason >with you like adults. Wouldn't a "professional" consider a product on its merits, not his own ethical problems with it? *yawn* Your trolling is becoming horrendously transparent, Andrew darling. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Your behavior in this thread reminds me a bit of how some fans react > on the sports newsgroups when someone criticizes their team. > For those posters, they have so much of themselves invested > in the team they follow that they lash out when that team > is criticized, much as you have lashed out at me when I have > criticized White Wolf. Jason, Please address these 4 points and I am sure the rest of the gang will leave you alone These are a few of many possible reasons that WW during its successful resurrection of a dead game that was a failure to successfully make money yet a very fun game refuses to reprint sorted sets of cards. 1) depression of demand for boosters. 2) increased costs of production. 3) marginal increase in utility to players who vastly outnumber collectors 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote > > Top 5 games for me are Xcom, Xcom2 Xcom Apocalypse, Age of Empires and > Zork Heh. Good man. I never could get into X-Com Apocalypse personally... I installed it, played around for a few games and never went back. It always seemed inferior to the first. X-Com 2 - Terror From the Deep seemed wonderful except that it was way too damn hard. I loved the underwater theme, graphics, the expanded maps and such but I grew too frustrated having my ass regularly kicked. I've heard there's an editor kicking around somewhere that makes the game a bit more playable. I actually bought all three X-Coms and Mechwarrior 3 in a bundle for $20 CDN about a year ago. Sweet deal! Cheers, WES P.S. Dave, if I ever actually *meet* you (we are both in Detroit apparently) I'll have to get you to explain to me what I was missing about Apocalypse.

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > Because you want to collect something, doesn't make it collectable. > Some people have sets of used underware, but that doesn't make your > boxers collectable. Well, in that case Aaron, could I have mine back? Oops. Did I just hit Reply or Reply Group? Shit.

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9jcqf...@enews3.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No. I'm having them bronzed.

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d2f8d37b.01072...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 1. No matter how well versed everyone on the group is in economics, no one can say that printing cards in alternate methods will force demand for product to fall. Not necessarily full sorted sets, read any of my posts for alternatives. You guys seem to have stuck this full set thing so far up...nevermind. Just realized that there are different ways that could be used if anyone cared to think them up. 2. There is no increase in production. If white wolf packaged a full sheet in a box, or mixed up 10 sheets before then stuffed them into a box. It's not like they are making more or less cards. Just different schemes of distribution. 3. Okay. I believe you have provided valid points for why sets are not a good idea. None of them seem to disprove why they are a potentially good idea, but there are two sides to every topic. 4. The game wasn't broke after V:TES. It isn't broke now. There was nothing broken with random starter decks. There was no need for the preconstructed. They are a nice addition. There are possibly other things that would be helpful as well. Maybe we could figure them out if it wasn't for the: "Screw you" and "Screw you more" bantering of certain people on this thread. Any good system needs to be shaken up every so often. If there is nothing broken, then we need no new cards. No new sets. Nothing. No progress is made by sitting idle. No offense XZealot. Just attempting to answer your well laid out points! :) Aaron

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:Enb67.191442$Md.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > I've recently heard several people mention a game called Titan. There > are > > > several listed on the site you gave us that might be the game they are > > > referring to, not sure. Anyone here played it? > > > > Titan , the monster slugathon game, rocks! It just takes as long as a > game of > > chess or VTES to play. > > Titan: The Monster Slugathon Fantasy Wargame > XZealot, please turn in your geek badge as you leave. > > I once left a game of Titan to go to sleep, only to wake up the next > ahem, afternoon to find my roomate and a houseguest still playing > it. That game should not be tampered with unless you have at the > very least 5 hours to dispose of. And it's not the sort of 5 hours > which require all players to conspire to continue the game (like > Illuminati board game, which invariably seems to end when the > player currently responsible for stopping the current coup-de-gras > just allows it to happen out of fatigue or resentment of all the other > players), it can just take that long as a matter of course. Wait a sec, what game of Titan are you guys talking about? The only game I know of is called "Titan: The Arena" Very quick. Played with cards where you bet on who's going to whoop the next guy. Good level of strategy. Super fun...but incredibly hard to find and well out of print. (anyone that has it and wants to sell it to me just let me know!!) Aaron

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > > Coupe wrote: > >> I don't give a f*ck if you have a piece of paper from anywhere saying "I > >> woz gud at eekonommics" or anything like that. > >> > >> When you act in the way you do, you will get characterised in the way > >> you have been. On Usenet, no-one either knows or cares if you're a dog. > >> Your posts are what count. > > > >Consider for just a moment of how the implications of what you > >just wrote apply to what you just wrote and to the things you've > >been saying about me in this thread. > > > >Or don't, but I will, and I suspect others will as well. > > I don't really give a f*ck. Clearly. > You sit there ranting and trolling about ... Who's ranting? Yes, that would be you. > You attempt to posture with "My diploma supports me in e- > mail". This is either a very poorly constructed sentence or a very bad lie. I have never attempted to contact you through e-mail, and I expect I never will. Nor have I claimed to have a diploma, in which field such a diploma would be, nor have I supported any of my arguments with a claim of either. You seem to have inferred all of this from my amusement at your naked assertion of my incompetence in economics. None of this is either here nor there, as you have shown a complete unwillingness to address just about anything I've argued in this thread in any way except through your puerile insults, which continue throughout your most recent posts. And you're the only one (though Derek might have helped with a double-team if his news server didn't delete my posts), as I've had an entertaining, spirited, informative, and friendly discussion with several other posters. > In general, you show a complete lack of clue about *anything* > and refuse to attempt to learn. You construct straw-men for no purpose, > you argue without understanding. > In short, you act like a f*ckwit showing the same level of understanding > as a clever child who's just hit 13 and thinks they know everything. Fabulous, six more totally unsupported and naked assertions in three sentences, to throw on top of the growing pile, and each just as insulting as the next. > When you continue to fail to absorb any form of clue at all, despite > numerous people taking you apart on numerous points, you *will* get > treated like a f*ckwit. It's real life, deal with it. If you don't > want to be continually attacked, in the way the Andrew S. Davidson is > for trolling and showing no capacity for clue, try getting a clue. Yes, it must be difficult for you that I'm not willing to knuckle under to your unrelenting hostility and persistent insults. Is this tactic and that expectation how you generally resolve disputes with people who disagree with you? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, since I would be totally shocked to get any sort of honest response from you in this thread. - Jason Bell

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote > Aaron wrote: > > > White wolf isn't selling the singles, and has no economic interest in > > the secondary market. You aren't selling singles and have no economic > > interest in the secondary market. Not all games have strong secondary > > markets. Some guy reselling your product doesn't mean that you will > > sell more, or that it will do well. > > This is wrong in its assertation. A strong seconday market provides > continued availablity, and also advertises the game all for free to the > Host company. Thus WW gets increased economic benifits from a > secondary market. This all seems backwards to me. A strong secondary market indicates not availability but scarcity, and the fact that some cards are unavailable at all or can only be obtained at great expense increases barriers to entry for new players. Neither of these things provides a benefit to White Wolf. I'll grant you the advertising, but I'd be amazed if all that many people stumbled onto the secondary market for any TCG and thereby decided to start playing the game. - Jason Bell

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Wait a sec, what game of Titan are you guys talking about? > The only game I know of is called "Titan: The Arena" > Very quick. Played with cards where you bet on who's going to whoop the > next guy. > Good level of strategy. Super fun...but incredibly hard to find and well > out of print. (anyone that has it and wants to sell it to me just let me > know!!) Maybe that's what everyone is talking about but me, then. The Titan I know involves a board filled with hexagonal squares that represent biomes (heh, never thought I'd use that word again) such as jungle, plains, and mountains, plus arrows showing how and under what circumstances you are allowed to move among the hexes. You spend your turns wandering through these hexes recruiting monsters to your band(s) of monsters until you bump into another player doing the same thing, at which point you go to another hex board and beat the crap out of each other with 6 sided dice and tokens. The game can get long when your bands get large, at which point you break them into two or more bands, and each group wanders the board as described above (I think you are allowed up to 6 or 8 of such bands, I could tell you exactly, but it's a long way to the basement right now). - Jason Bell

In message <2Hq67.195180$Md.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Yes, it must be difficult for you that I'm not willing to knuckle >under to your unrelenting hostility and persistent insults. Not really. It just shows how really stupid you are that you cannot absorb clues when they're handed to you on a plate. If you believe you make anything "difficult" for me, you really do think more of yourself than you should. You are very little more than a minor annoyance, taking a few minutes of my day. There are far more pressing things to worry about than you. I can, however, do both. I make myself look rude, abrasive and intolerant. However, anyone reading the group can see that I'm only rude to *you*, specifically, or any other passing fuckwit. Any person reading the group can note that I get along quite amicably with dozens of other people here. A difference can be noted. Were I such to everyone, a pattern could be found. Since I'm not, it can't. You continue to troll wildly, using straw-men and making unsupported assertions. (Like, for instance, the one above.) You continue to make yourself look like a trolling, idiotic fuckwit to all and sundry, simply by being yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > VTES is not a collectible card game, as noted in previous posts to > this thread. If there's one person who should know better than argue with me before checking your facts, Aaron, it's you. So before you spout any more bullshit, go pick up a VTES starter deck as printed by WotC, look at the back and read the words printed in white at the bottom. And once you've eaten your fair share of crow, try to remember this object lesson. Noal

Lemar Johnson wrote: > No WoTC TCG is marketed as a CCG. Really? Well, if you say it must be true!!! But before I get so hasty as to argue with the famed and esteemed Lemar Johnson, allow me to read a box of cards produced by WotC. Now if you would bear with me for a second, I shall transcribe what I am reading from the back of a V:TES starter box:, "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle ^TM (formerly Jyhad ^TM) is an exciting trading card game." So we can all agree that V:TES is a Trading Card Game. But, if I continue reading, I find at the very end, "Contains one rulebook and 76 collectable game cards." Holy shit, Batman! If WotC isn't marketing VTES as a Collectable Card Game, why did they use the phrase, "collectable game cards," on the product itself?!? In short, have a meal of humble pie with a side of crow. Next time you make an arugment, please have enough respect for us all as to check your facts, first. Warmest Regards, Noal

In message <3B5A4B6E...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> writes >Holy shit, Batman! If WotC isn't marketing VTES as a Collectable Card >Game, why did they use the phrase, "collectable game cards," on the >product itself?!? Remember, WotC were able to do various legal shenanigins with TCG, but *not* with CCG. I recall a patent being granted to Garfield on behalf of WotC (I believe US Patent Law requires it to go to a specific person, rather than a company) regarding a number of the mechanics. The TCG mechanic was one, IIRC. (Not that I agree with this. My belief is that this is one of the areas where US law really badly interacts with Real Life (tm) and the rest of the world in general. The whole thing about being able to patent ideas and mathematical formulas etc. is just plain weird.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > Jason, > Please address these 4 points and I am sure the rest of the gang will > leave you alone Don't be so sure, but anyway... I didn't ask anyone to leave me alone, I just encouraged those who responded to address my arguments. For space and clarity, I'm going to address most of these questions exclusively for the selling of sets, as that seems to be where the discussion currently stands (the "by title" part of this debate is over for me, as I have conceded that it may well be impossible for WW to do profitably, but other interesting arguments have popped up especially relating to booster size, rarity to commons ratios, even the elimination of a rare sheet altogether) Before I begin in earnest, let me say that The Nosferatu Stuff beat me to the punch in responding to this, and though I will try to address these nonetheless, I'll try to avoid overly re-hashing his post, with which I agree for the most part. > These are a few of many possible reasons that WW during its successful > resurrection of a dead game that was a failure to successfully make > money yet a very fun game refuses to reprint sorted sets of cards. > > 1) depression of demand for boosters. I have conceded that any new card distribution method must reduce demand for boosters. The longtime existence of starters did this, and the distribution of pre-constructed decks do the same. My question is whether an additional distribution scheme (my suggestion being sets) would increase total product sales or not. If sets depress total demand for cards, this would be a strong argument for avoiding selling sets (though not neccessarily a complete argument, depending on why total demand would be depressed; after all, if demand diminished only to the extent that consumers no longer bought cards they did not need and could not use, selling sets with the result of decreased demand could still be a good idea) One solution I offered for consideration for dealing with fear of decreased total demand is to delay set availability until some time after initial booster availability, which seems like the safest bet for increasing total sales by offering product when booster sales would presumably be at or near their nadir. > 2) increased costs of production. I have conceded that increased production costs are a very strong reason indeed for White Wolf to not Ventrue into the market of selling individual cards on demand by title. However, no such argument can be made against the selling of sets. By selling sets, an extra manufacturing step can be completely avoided (where cards are randomized), and entire sheets can be cut then immediately packaged for sale. Overall, this seems like it would decrease costs of production. I would be mightily curious to know whether it is cheaper per card for WW to produce its pre-con decks or cards in the old starter format. That seems like information which would settle this point rather decicively. > 3) marginal increase in utility to players who vastly outnumber > collectors I thought I had gone through several arguments for how players would benefit from set availability. In general, those arguments involved 1. The stabilization of the secondary markets for individual cards; or B. Envisioned a route for players to acquire a card or cards they want by buying them from WW, with a known ceiling for the cost and reduced uncertainty of receiving the sought card(s). But perhaps I misinterpret your definition of collector as opposed to player. If I seek specific card or cards to play in a deck, I assume you would call me a player, yes? It is a very difficult distinction, as I imagine very small exclusive areas in the Venn diagram. > 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. My original criticism of White Wolf makes plain my opinion that I believe that it is broken. The way this game is sold is terribly wasteful, and inneficient to the point where a secondary market is generated to distribute its game pieces to both players and collectors. As far as I know, such markets do not exist for non TCGs, unless those games are no longer produced by their manufacturer. It very well may be that "it ain't broken" from WW's financial standpoint, and perhaps offering consumers another way to buy the cards from the manufacturer would destroy the game by some mechanism that is unknown to me, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful argument as to how. Anyway, that's my response to your four major areas. I don't claim that these responses fully resolve any of the four issues you stated, but I hope they demonstrate that my opinions on the matter are not thoughtless, mindless, or ill-considered, as has been suggested by my detractor. - Jason Bell

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:3B5A4987...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com... [ quoted text not captured ] "Contains one rulebook and 76 collectable game cards." Congratulations, you can read. WotC doesn't print VTES. Much like their version of fame says one thing, white wolfs says another. Which one is more up to date? Regardless. I have no interest in debating collectability of a game. There are people that collect games in general(check my coat closet..there aren't any coats!) Just because you can collect something doesn't mean that should dictate the primary function of that object. And that still doesn't make anything else in your original post mean anything. Noal: "Selling a set of cards in such a manner as to make them equally accessible reduces their value in the secondary market to nil and thus destroys the marketability of the contents of that set to collectors." So you destroy their value in the secondary market? I'm still missing it here. White wolf didn't make up the secondary market. You didn't. In fact, what purpose does it serve? To make someone else money. Noal:"Notice that this is much different than Lunch Money. When was the last time that you saw individual Lunch Money cards being auctioned on e-bay?" What is wrong with lunch money? As it stands now, you buy one set and you are done. Why isn't lunch money collectable? Because the format of rarity is not necessary. If there was no money to make selling a single product a single time then why would anything ever be sold in this format? Monopoly has been selling for years and years, and you only need to buy it once. Is there no money to be made? Do you actually think that someone out there is printing all those sets for their own amusement? **READ THIS IF NOTHING ELSE** Again...for about the 15th time. Selling full sets of VTES may NOT be an appropriate solution. But the huge disparity in the distribution of cards(amount of rares to commons) is something that I believe could be moved some what into the middle ground. There can be a solution where it is easy for the players to get enough cards to play, and collectors to have something to collect if they choose to. If you disagree please tell me why you think that it should be difficult(at the ratio of 7 to 1) to get a card needed to play a game you just paid for? Aaron

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:Has67.195375$Md.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > Jason, > > Please address these 4 points and I am sure the rest of the gang will > > leave you alone > > Don't be so sure, but anyway... > > I didn't ask anyone to leave me alone, I just encouraged those > who responded to address my arguments. For space and > clarity, I'm going to address most of these questions exclusively > for the selling of sets, as that seems to be where the discussion > currently stands (the "by title" part of this debate is over for > me, as I have conceded that it may well be impossible for WW to > do profitably, but other interesting arguments have popped > up especially relating to booster size, rarity to commons ratios, > even the elimination of a rare sheet altogether) > > Before I begin in earnest, let me say that The Nosferatu Stuff > beat me to the punch in responding to this, and though I will try > to address these nonetheless, I'll try to avoid overly re-hashing > his post, with which I agree for the most part. I'm on top of this one...but I'm trying to get away from the set thing. While I believe that it will not ruin anyone's fun, I think that it is so publicly ill received that it would be better to focus on achieving a solution that makes more people happy. (good old fashioned diplomacy) I would hope that you and that other guy would give up this argument over who's got a bigger what ever. As you both make good points, I would rather see more constructive conversation then mud slinging. Actually....if anyone out there has the specifics on ancient hearts/dark sovereigns/original sabbat packs I would be interested to hear them.(#cards off of each sheet) I have the breakdowns of all the other sets and am preparing a report. There are some interesting things you can learn. And I really think that the concept of a 'rare' sheet has to be modified. Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

In message <4Gs67.10576$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >"Contains one rulebook and 76 collectable game cards." > >Congratulations, you can read. WotC doesn't print VTES. Much like their >version of fame says one thing, white wolfs says another. Which one is more >up to date? White Wolf say it's a collectible card game too. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/eternalstrugglepress.html http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/writers'%20bios/greenburg.html http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Checklist_SabbatWar.html Congratulations, you didn't read. :( (For reference, that took me about 15 seconds to find.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<4C7C56AB2E2681FE.71506271...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 19 Jul 2001 04:09:06 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >But the issue with Ryan Dancey was his apparent hypocrisy, not his > >views about the Lonely Ones. As James C has said, we did not see why > >vampires were any more evil than werewolves or than some of the > >concepts in Lo5R. > > I've waded through the Feb 98 postings to VTES-L now and Ryan > addressed that point: > > >> Now where exactly does this differ from V:tES? > >VtES: You are evil > >Rage: You fight against evil > >Comprende? Factually incorrect, or at least half the truth. In Classic rage the best expansion was the Wyrm, where you got to be the bad guys. And even in Wyrm-free games the werewolves spent most of their time fighting each other. IIRC their mission is to be warriors for Gaia and in particular the Wyld aspect of the Weaver/Wyrm/Wyld triad, no individual part of which is good or evil - they are just out of balance, and this impends Apocalypse. > > Having looked at Rage now, this is a fair point - the Garou are heroic > defenders of Gaia against the servants of the evil Wyrm - Pentex, the > Vampires etc. Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red Talons like to eat people, for example. > > More generally, what happened was that Ryan posted a press release > concerning the future of all the FRPG games to their various lists. > VTES's fate was to be put on indefinite hold and the list then engaged > in a futile exercise of shooting the messenger. Here are two > pertinent Dancey quotes: > > >I really like the VtES game. I bought a whole lot of Jyhad cards, and I > >played it to the point of being able to effectively oppose random opponents > >at cons and such. I think it has an amazingly well designed set of > >mechanics, I think it has a lot of depth and richness. While it has been a > >few years since I played it >last<, I do have some history with the game. > >My current situation as the responsible party post-dates my experience with > >the game as a fan. > > >Again: The issue regarding VtES is it's poor performance in the > >marketplace. That poor performance is the reason there is no active VtES > >development ongoing. My personal and professional concern regarding the > >brand is a secondary problem for the VtES product line. > > There were a few voices of sanity but mostly the opposition was a lot > of fanboy ranting. LSJ's contribution was a petty nitpick of a typing > error. I'm afraid it's the fans that come out this looking bad. > Dancey was and is a professional who knew his job and tried to reason > with you like adults. Continuing to malign him is just more childish > spite. He was/is a professional in the same sense that the mechanic who can't fix your car but still charges you a mountain of money for it was/is. And like that other professional he was/is very glib with unsubstantianable claims about why it is impossible, not just for him, but for any other mortal, to fix your car. Of course, sometimes the mechanic is right; but in this case WW fixed the car. i do not see any reason to change my view of Ryan S Dancey [i still don't know what the S stands for but i'm fairly positive it isn't Saint]. > > Andrew

"Noal McDonald" wrote > Lemar Johnson wrote: > > No WoTC TCG is marketed as a CCG. > > Really? Well, if you say it must be true!!! ... > So we can all agree that V:TES is a Trading Card Game. But, if I > continue reading, I find at the very end, "Contains one rulebook and 76 > collectable game cards." > > Holy sh*t, Batman! If WotC isn't marketing VTES as a Collectable Card > Game, why did they use the phrase, "collectable game cards," on the > product itself?!? Answer obvious, WotC once marketed their products as collectible, but no longer do. Your inconsistent verb tense allowed you to gloss over that little bauble. Perhaps you were busy preparing Lemar's crow or baking his pie? Any attempts to transcribe the word "collectable" from any product packaging or from the included rules literature since that time would probably not meet with any success. I don't have a Dark Sovereigns booster handy, but the display box does not mention the word, nor does the Ancient Hearts booster or display box, nor does the Final Nights booster or display box (even though that's WW's responsibility), nor does any rulebook since Jyhad, even the one inside the V:tES box from which you transcribed the "collectable" above. For all these cases, "trading" or "tradable" is the term used. I don't have as much M:tG packaging, but while the Unlimited starter says "collectable trading card game," none of the more recent product I have says collectable anywhere (I have a Mirage starter box and a Visions display box handy). > In short, have a meal of humble pie with a side of crow. Next time you > make an arugment, please have enough respect for us all as to check your > facts, first. That's how these games are marketed at the point of sale and in the description of the game in the rulebooks. I can't be positive about their commercials, as I'm often diving for the remote when I see one. It looks like Lamar may yet go hungry. - Jason Bell

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > Jason, > > > Please address these 4 points and I am sure the rest of the gang will > > > leave you alone > > > > Don't be so sure, but anyway... ... > I would hope that you and that other guy would give up this argument over > who's got a bigger what ever. As you both make good points, I would rather > see more constructive conversation then mud slinging. Sigh. Yeah, I'm really bad at leaving it alone when I am baited or insulted in a public forum. I resolve to try harder to resist. > Actually....if anyone out there has the specifics on ancient hearts/dark > sovereigns/original sabbat packs I would be interested to hear them.(#cards > off of each sheet) I have the breakdowns of all the other sets and am > preparing a report. There are some interesting things you can learn. And I > really think that the concept of a 'rare' sheet has to be modified. I can't help here, but I look forward to that discussion. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:la5Zr9Kc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <4Gs67.10576$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The > Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes > >"Contains one rulebook and 76 collectable game cards." > > > >Congratulations, you can read. WotC doesn't print VTES. Much like their > >version of fame says one thing, white wolfs says another. Which one is more > >up to date? > > White Wolf say it's a collectible card game too. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/eternalstrugglepress.html > http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/writers'%20bios/greenburg.html > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Checklist_SabbatWar.html > > Congratulations, you didn't read. :( (For reference, that took me about > 15 seconds to find.) James, do you exist to add any meaning comments? By the way: Congratulations, you didn't read, and no one asked you to. ME: "Regardless. I have no interest in debating collectability of a game." As in, I don't care. Debating verbage is a big waste of time. Apparently talking to you is also a big waste of time. Your replies avoid all substance. You do nothing but try to make other people look bad, and I cannot understand your motivation for that. I can, however, understand why people react to your posts the way they do.

Jason Bell wrote: > Answer obvious, WotC once marketed their products as collectible, > but no longer do. My point was that WotC did market VTES as a CCG. Now that White Wolf is running the show, WotC is no longer relevant to the statement that I made that VTES _is_ (as in today) a CCG. Which is something that Lemar glossed over...so he can still eat the meal I provided for him. > nor does the Final Nights booster or display box (even though > that's WW's responsibility), Now you make the case that White Wolf doesn't market VTES as a collectable card game. James Coupe conveniently provided some links that prove that White Wolf _does_ market VTES as a collectible card game: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/eternalstrugglepress.html http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/writers'%20bios/greenburg.html http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Checklist_SabbatWar.html Now can we all finally stop agruing with me about whether VTES is currently being marketed as a CCG. There is clear, empirical proof that it is. Noal

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > Your replies avoid all substance. His replies provide a lot more substance than mock conversations, Aaron. Before pointing out the mote in your neighbor's eye, you should remove the plank in your own. Noal

> > 1) depression of demand for boosters. > > I have conceded that any new card distribution method > must reduce demand for boosters. The longtime existence > of starters did this, and the distribution of pre-constructed > decks do the same. > > My question is whether an additional distribution scheme > (my suggestion being sets) would increase total product > sales or not. If sets depress total demand for cards, this > would be a strong argument for avoiding selling sets (though > not neccessarily a complete argument, depending on why > total demand would be depressed; after all, if demand > diminished only to the extent that consumers no longer > bought cards they did not need and could not use, selling > sets with the result of decreased demand could still be a > good idea) > > One solution I offered for consideration for dealing with > fear of decreased total demand is to delay set availability > until some time after initial booster availability, which seems > like the safest bet for increasing total sales by offering product > when booster sales would presumably be at or near their nadir. > How does the market demand this product? If as you say you delay the issuing of complete sets until after the initial rush of booster collecting, then certainly wouldn't you eliminate from the potential customer group those customers who have already put together a set. > > 2) increased costs of production. > > I have conceded that increased production costs are a > very strong reason indeed for White Wolf to not Ventrue > into the market of selling individual cards on demand by title. > > However, no such argument can be made against the selling > of sets. By selling sets, an extra manufacturing step > can be completely avoided (where cards are randomized), > and entire sheets can be cut then immediately packaged > for sale. Overall, this seems like it would decrease costs > of production. I would argue with you there. I am have been in the manufacturing business for about 18 years. Manufacturing profitably is setting up a specialized multi-step process to create goods at a affordable cost. If you package sets then you are not packaging boosters. To justify your changing of the packaging process to sets, you must be able to prove before you change that you can make money doing so. Otherwise, there is a real possibility of losing money. No established businessman would enter into such a venture without very real market data showing that it would be profitable. > > 3) marginal increase in utility to players who vastly outnumber > > collectors > > I thought I had gone through several arguments for how > players would benefit from set availability. In general, > those arguments involved 1. The stabilization of the > secondary markets for individual cards; or B. Envisioned > a route for players to acquire a card or cards they want by > buying them from WW, with a known ceiling for the cost and > reduced uncertainty of receiving the sought card(s). > > But perhaps I misinterpret your definition of collector > as opposed to player. If I seek specific card or cards > to play in a deck, I assume you would call me a player, yes? > It is a very difficult distinction, as I imagine very small > exclusive areas in the Venn diagram. I defined neither collector nor player. For the purposes of this arguement they are mutually excusive. A collector collects the cards with no intrest in playability, merely in resale value. A players collects the cards for playability with no intrest in resale value. To address your point, didn't you say above (under point 1) that the selling of singles by WW would be by definition unprofitable at any reasonable price. I do not believe that players will spend $100 dollars for a set (this is a hypothetical price) just to aquire one to ten cards. They will have already spent between $200 to $300 dollars to buy boosters for play stock. So that leaves collectors. I have no idea how many VTES collectors we have out there. So if as you say the printing of the sets puts a ceiling on the value of cards wouldn't that dissuade collecters from buying either boosters or the set because the value of their cards will never increase beyond a certain point. > > 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. > > My original criticism of White Wolf makes plain > my opinion that I believe that it is broken. > > The way this game is sold is terribly wasteful, and inneficient > to the point where a secondary market is generated to > distribute its game pieces to both players and collectors. > As far as I know, such markets do not exist for non TCGs, > unless those games are no longer produced by their > manufacturer. ROTFLOL, whew! that's a good one. Stop it. My sides hurt. The key word here is as far as you know. You don't know. Scrye has printed a Collectible Card Game Price Guide for for what I can tell is every single card game ever printed. It is as thick as your phonebook/Bible. In addition to VTES, it has in its pages everysingle expansion for Magic, Legend of the 5 Rings, even Netrunner, and so many more. This guide is the card collector's "Bible" it gives you a general idea for demand for any one card. It is actual physcial proof that secondary markets exist for other card games. > > It very well may be that "it ain't broken" from WW's > financial standpoint, and perhaps offering consumers > another way to buy the cards from the manufacturer > would destroy the game by some mechanism that is > unknown to me, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful > argument as to how. Let me explain it to you. The mechanism is called capitalism. You produce a product at a cost. You then sell it for more than that cost. The difference is called Profit. Profit can be either negitive or positive. Negative Profits are called Losses. Losses are bad as they eat up the supply of money you have. This is not a good thing. Alternitive means of purchasing from White Wolf would be bad. My piddling purchase of $250 dollars from a distributor is nice if it is matched by 100 other orders for that same amount. So for White Wolf that single distributor bought $25,000 worth of product on one order. They only have to process that one order. This costs signifigantly less than having to process 100 orders. You want to eliminate the middleman (i.e. the distributor) but yet you cannot eliminate his function (the warehousing and processing of individual customer's orders). We also have to take into account that the $25,000 includes the distributor's profit. So let's take a profit margin of 30% for the distributor. So now that is only $17,500 in revenue for WW. Now White Wolf is outsourcing their manufacturing of VTES, and the cost of cards to be printed is $2,500. That leaves $15,000 dollars left over. Now you have to pay the creative staff who creates the cards and artwork. So lets say that this is a 3 month project. That is $5,000 dollars a month they have to spend. That is 4 people making $1,250.00 per month before taxes. This is all before you have processed one order. Do you understand? > > Anyway, that's my response to your four major > areas. I don't claim that these responses fully > resolve any of the four issues you stated, but > I hope they demonstrate that my opinions on the > matter are not thoughtless, mindless, or > ill-considered, as has been suggested by my > detractor. I believe that you have a good head on your shoulders, and you have been both the victim and the progenitor of many of these flames. My problem is that I do not think you have taken the real world considerations into play before you make your points. And yes, I was incredibly offended by your characterization of WW as a evil company that fleeces its customers. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fQp67.10492$bU6.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:d2f8d37b.01072...@posting.google.com... > > > Your behavior in this thread reminds me a bit of how some fans react > > > on the sports newsgroups when someone criticizes their team. > > > For those posters, they have so much of themselves invested > > > in the team they follow that they lash out when that team > > > is criticized, much as you have lashed out at me when I have > > > criticized White Wolf. > > > > Jason, > > Please address these 4 points and I am sure the rest of the gang will > > leave you alone > > > > These are a few of many possible reasons that WW during its successful > > resurrection of a dead game that was a failure to successfully make > > money yet a very fun game refuses to reprint sorted sets of cards. > > > > 1) depression of demand for boosters. > > 2) increased costs of production. > > 3) marginal increase in utility to players who vastly outnumber > > collectors > > 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. > > 1. No matter how well versed everyone on the group is in economics, no one > can say that printing cards in alternate methods will force demand for > product to fall. By simple economic law you have created a substitute, and substitutes decrease demand. In the real world, you try never ever to compete with yourself. It is bad for business unless you own the whole market. By printing sets you are creating an item that competes for customers with your regular booster stock. Not necessarily full sorted sets, read any of my posts for > alternatives. You guys seem to have stuck this full set thing so far > up...nevermind. Just realized that there are different ways that could be > used if anyone cared to think them up. > We already have non-complete set for sale. They are called pre-constructed starters. > 2. There is no increase in production. If white wolf packaged a full sheet > in a box, or mixed up 10 sheets before then stuffed them into a box. It's > not like they are making more or less cards. Just different schemes of > distribution. There might not be any increase in production. You are going to have a increase in production costs though. You must package the "different schemes of distribution" in a different manner. This costs money. The manufacturing alone would cause to have to change your manufacturing process to create the "different scheme of distribution". Change is bad for manufacturing. Change causes costs to increase. Cost eat profits. Profits pay workers. Workers do the work that makes the product. Do you see how changing the "distribution scheme" would increase costs so that they could afford less workers which would lower the quality of the end product, not to mention the quantity of end product that could be produced at a profit. > 3. Okay. I believe you have provided valid points for why sets are not a > good idea. None of them seem to disprove why they are a potentially good > idea, but there are two sides to every topic. The single biggest hurdle that the Pro-Set group has to clear is "How does printing a set increase the overall demand for my product without signifigantly decreasing the demand for an identical product that I already manufacture?" > 4. The game wasn't broke after V:TES. It was broke. Distributors were going broke for buying it. Let's see, at one point in time you could buy boxes of Jyhad for $5.00. They cost the distributor $20.00. That is a loss of $15.00 on every box. That is going broke about as fast as you can. It isn't broke now. Then why do you want to change it? There was > nothing broken with random starter decks. LOL, that's a good one. have you ever just bought a Jyhad or VTES started and tried to play with it. You can't. It is incohesive. If you are lucky two vampires will be from the same clan. The random starters for Jyhad/VTES were awful. No one could start playing the game right out of the box. It was a bunch of cards that required diffent things that were in short supply. There was no need for the > preconstructed. Are you on crack? Okay I will stop with the flames. How do you get new players interested in the game? You construct a deck and you give it to them. The Starters should have already done that. They didn't. So now we have pre-cons. They were very necessary. They are a nice addition. I think if nice was an abbreviation for necessary than I would agree with you. There are possibly other things > that would be helpful as well. Maybe we could figure them out if it wasn't > for the: "Screw you" and "Screw you more" bantering of certain people on > this thread. Any good system needs to be shaken up every so often. If > there is nothing broken, then we need no new cards. No new sets. Nothing. > No progress is made by sitting idle. This is a game, not social engineering. People should be allowed to fight. It is entertaining. Progress is made within the context of the game. Think Chess. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:4C7C56AB2E2681FE.71506271...@lp.airnews.net... > Ryan Dancey wrote: [clip] > >Again: The issue regarding VtES is it's poor performance in the > >marketplace. That poor performance is the reason there is no active VtES > >development ongoing. My personal and professional concern regarding the > >brand is a secondary problem for the VtES product line. We are aware that his problems were "secondary" concerns. However, you should remember that we were all working hard to support the game and to show there was a market for the product. This task becomes rather pointless when someone tells you that it doesn't matter how successful you are at generating interest, etc. because they won't meet the demand with product no matter what you do. > There were a few voices of sanity but mostly the opposition was a lot > of fanboy ranting. Yep. Mostly just a bunch of fanboys...oh, and some higher-ups at WotC. -Robert

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > Answer obvious, WotC once marketed their products as collectible, > > but no longer do. > > My point was that WotC did market VTES as a CCG. Which is not responsive to Lamar's claim. > Now that White Wolf is running the show, WotC is no longer relevant to > the statement that I made that VTES _is_ (as in today) a CCG. Which is > something that Lemar glossed over...so he can still eat the meal I > provided for him. > > > nor does the Final Nights booster or display box (even though > > that's WW's responsibility), > > Now you make the case that White Wolf doesn't market VTES as a > collectable card game. James Coupe conveniently provided some links that > prove that White Wolf _does_ market VTES as a collectible card game: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/eternalstrugglepress.html > http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/writers'%20bios/greenburg.html > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Checklist_SabbatWar.html > > Now can we all finally stop agruing with me about whether VTES is > currently being marketed as a CCG. There is clear, empirical proof that > it is. Not at the point of sale, it's not. I am curious as to whether the above links reflect mistakes by White Wolf's staff or whether WW intentionally represents the product on its website in a different manner than on the product packaging and in the rulebooks. It seems a peculiar inconsistency. But unless corrected, yes, White Wolf considers V:tES to be a CCG as well as a TCG. - Jason Bell

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > One solution I offered for consideration for dealing with > > fear of decreased total demand is to delay set availability > > until some time after initial booster availability, which seems > > like the safest bet for increasing total sales by offering product > > when booster sales would presumably be at or near their nadir. > > > > How does the market demand this product? If as you say you delay the > issuing of complete sets until after the initial rush of booster > collecting, > then certainly wouldn't you eliminate from the potential customer > group those > customers who have already put together a set. Yes, those who merely want to create a set would either have to wait or do it from boosters (as they must now). The point of the above suggestion would be shield protect booster sales from set demand if that were a large concern, not to maximize set demand. > > > 2) increased costs of production. > > > > I have conceded that increased production costs are a > > very strong reason indeed for White Wolf to not Ventrue > > into the market of selling individual cards on demand by title. > > > > However, no such argument can be made against the selling > > of sets. By selling sets, an extra manufacturing step > > can be completely avoided (where cards are randomized), > > and entire sheets can be cut then immediately packaged > > for sale. Overall, this seems like it would decrease costs > > of production. > > I would argue with you there. I am have been in the manufacturing > business for about 18 years. Manufacturing profitably is setting up > a specialized multi-step process to create goods at a affordable cost. > If you package sets then you are not packaging boosters. Pre-con decks are a different multi-stage process than boosters, and that doesn't seem to cause WW undue difficulty, despite conforming to the above objections. > To justify > your changing of the packaging process to sets, you must be able to > prove before you change that you can make money doing so. Otherwise, > there is a real possibility of losing money. No established > businessman > would enter into such a venture without very real market data showing > that it would be profitable. Of course, if this observation were always true (though I agree that such sedentary conservatism exists in business), there would probably never have been a TCG industry at all. I wouldn't be shocked if there were WW people who would take a swing at you if you described them to be the above businessmen. > I defined neither collector nor player. For the purposes of this > arguement they are mutually excusive. A collector collects the > cards with no intrest in playability, merely in resale value. A > players collects the cards for playability with no intrest in > resale value. That's a tough model, particularly since I don't know anyone who falls into it. There probably are exclusive collectors, but the only exclusive players I know don't own cards, or at least don't buy them anymore. They borrow mine. > To address your point, didn't you say above (under point 1) > that the selling of singles by WW would be by definition unprofitable > at any reasonable price. No, I did not say that. I concede that the logistics of WW entering the singles market would involve a great deal of complexity and uncertainty, such that I won't argue that WW should do it. > I do not believe that players will spend $100 dollars for > a set (this is a hypothetical price) just to aquire one to ten cards. If it's just one to ten cards, of course you are correct, but it's probably like one to ten cards that the player really wants, plus maybe 30 others or more that the player would not mind having more of. As an exercise, browse the Final Nights checklist to see if this correlates with your preferences. > So that leaves collectors. I have no idea how many VTES > collectors > we have out there. So if as you say the printing of the sets puts a > ceiling on > the value of cards wouldn't that dissuade collecters from buying > either boosters > or the set because the value of their cards will never increase beyond > a certain point. I guess I just disagree with this, I think players would buy the sets. But just as important, the secondary market becomes much more efficient when the inputs are known with certainty. This allows better distribution of individual game pieces in the face of the idea that WW may not be able to sell singles without great risk. > > > 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. > > > > My original criticism of White Wolf makes plain > > my opinion that I believe that it is broken. > > > > The way this game is sold is terribly wasteful, and inneficient > > to the point where a secondary market is generated to > > distribute its game pieces to both players and collectors. > > As far as I know, such markets do not exist for non TCGs, > > unless those games are no longer produced by their > > manufacturer. > > ROTFLOL, whew! that's a good one. Stop it. My sides hurt. > The key word here is as far as you know. You don't know. > Scrye has printed a Collectible Card Game Price Guide for > for what I can tell is every single card game ever printed. > It is as thick as your phonebook/Bible. Right, you can stop laughing, as I'm assuming that all those price lists are for card games, as I described above. My point was that secondary markets are a function of the trading card industry. Did Scrye even exist before Magic? If it did, I imagine that it was not a pricing guide for collectibles. > It is actual physcial proof that > secondary markets exist for other card games. I never claimed otherwise. But to illustrate my point, you'll probably not find the price of a Monopoly hotel on any such list. Similar lists do exist for antiques and other collectibles, but the only such collectible that I know had such a list while it was manufactured were Beanie Babies. I suppose used autos have the same types of lists, but stess on the word "used." > > It very well may be that "it ain't broken" from WW's > > financial standpoint, and perhaps offering consumers > > another way to buy the cards from the manufacturer > > would destroy the game by some mechanism that is > > unknown to me, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful > > argument as to how. > > Let me explain it to you. The mechanism is called capitalism. > You produce a product at a cost. You then sell it for more > than that cost. The difference is called Profit. Profit can be > either negitive or positive. Negative Profits are called Losses. > Losses are bad as they eat up the supply of money you have. This > is not a good thing. Stage 1: Collect Underpants Stage 3: Profit > [snip] > Do you understand? Not at all, I am unclear as to why set sales cannot flow through the same distributors as the other packaged merchandise. I don't think I ever attacked the manufacturer-to-retailer distribution scheme, just the randomly distributed cards-in-packs distribution scheme. Apologies if that was unclear. > My problem is that I do not think you have taken the real > world considerations into play before you make your points. Well, I've been a consumer of Deckmaster products for a long time (ever since the middle of The Dark print run for M:tG). I've bought M:tG, Jyhad, and watched my friends buy any number of other games in the industry (Netrunner, L5R, even Dragon Dice), and also been a consumer of many traditional box games. I've seen both the good and the bad sides of Magic as its creators-cum-businessmen took the game through its growing pains and inflicted some of those pains on its customers. I've watched the development of the entire TCG industry from inception to boom to shake out to where it is now. The ideas I've discussed in this thread have, in many cases, been expressions of the real world lessons those observations taught me, ideas of how some of the serious shortcomings of a novel game format could be addressed. So no, I believe I have had at least one foot in the real world during this discussion, and where I have strayed, I have at least been within sight of the real world. > And yes, I was incredibly offended by your characterization > of WW as a evil company that fleeces its customers. When White Wolf inherits V:tES from WotC and continues WotC's TCG distribution model for its expansions, it exposes itself to the same criticisms to which WotC gets criticized (at least in kind, whether or not in extent). Look back at the early posts in this thread, several took WotC as an example of the 'real' or 'worse' bad guys and got no criticism for those claims, then consider the functional differences between the two companies in regards to Final Nights as compared to, say, Magic: Mercadian Masques products. Perhaps I could have used some more flowery language, but I used the term in the post to which I was responding, so there you go. But yeah, if you want to be incredibly offended, the internet is definitely the place to be. 8-) - Jason Bell

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:3B5AEF17...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com... [ quoted text not captured ] There is no mock conversations. Because you choose to ignore the points of interest are not my problem. I'm not poking you in the eye. I just think you are talking about nothing. James is helping you talk about nothing. Posting up some links to prove your points are fine, but they are not substantive material for discussion. How am I supposed to respond? Okay Noal, that's what the back of the box says. It doesn't say it there anymore. It doesn't change the real world, where we play a game with our cards. It doesn't make me think the current make up of things is fine. It doesn't help me understand why you like throwing away pieces of paper that you bought to play with, that you are unable to use? Aaron

[ quoted text not captured ] Alternate methods is not limited to sets. I take it you are opposed to sets. Is there any other method you could live with? For example, if we were to remove the rare sheet, and replace it with a second commone sheet, and just have boosters that contained 3 cards from common sheet 1; 3 cards from common sheet 2; 3 cards from a vampire sheet; and 2 cards from an uncommon sheet. There is a different breakdown of the 11 cards you are paying for, without the huge gaps/amounts of useless paper. > > 2. There is no increase in production. If white wolf packaged a full sheet > > in a box, or mixed up 10 sheets before then stuffed them into a box. It's > > not like they are making more or less cards. Just different schemes of > > distribution. > > There might not be any increase in production. You are going to have > a increase in production costs though. You must package the > "different schemes of distribution" in a different manner. This costs > money. The manufacturing alone would cause to have to change your > manufacturing process to create the > "different scheme of distribution". Change is bad for manufacturing. > Change causes costs to increase. Cost eat profits. Profits pay > workers. Workers > do the work that makes the product. Do you see how changing the > "distribution scheme" would increase costs so that they could afford > less workers which would lower the quality of the end product, not to > mention the quantity of end product that could be produced at a > profit. As you pointed out, white wolf is making preconstructed decks. Unless they did that on purpose to lose money, there should be no problem switching to something similar to my example above. I am not sure that physical manufacturing would have to change, just distribution. You say it would cost a large amount of money to package things differently, because change causes costs. When white wolf decides to make a new set, like bloodlines, isn't that going to cost more? And in your expert opinion, would it cost them any more to change from 1 card from a 'rare' sheet in a package to 2? I believe you are correct, that there is no possible way to change production now, but when the next change comes why not make it more favorable? > > > 3. Okay. I believe you have provided valid points for why sets are not a > > good idea. None of them seem to disprove why they are a potentially good > > idea, but there are two sides to every topic. > > The single biggest hurdle that the Pro-Set group has to clear is "How > does printing a set increase the overall demand for my product without > signifigantly decreasing the demand for an identical product that I > already manufacture?" I'm still looking toward the future on this one. If I were going to produce sets, I probably wouldn't make random boosters..and avoid competition with myself(bad as you point out) Although I do not think that if white wolf were to now issue a completed boxed set of sabbat war, that it would hurt their sales...uhm...of their sold out product. > > 4. The game wasn't broke after V:TES. > > It was broke. Distributors were going broke for buying it. Let's > see, at one point in time you could buy boxes of Jyhad for $5.00. > They cost the distributor $20.00. That is a loss of $15.00 on every > box. That is going broke about as fast as you can. > > It isn't broke now. > > Then why do you want to change it? > > There was > > nothing broken with random starter decks. > > LOL, that's a good one. have you ever just bought a Jyhad or VTES > started and tried to play with it. You can't. It is incohesive. If > you are lucky two vampires will be from the same clan. The random > starters for Jyhad/VTES were awful. No one could start playing the > game right out of the box. It was a bunch of cards that required > diffent things that were in short supply. In the sense that you said 'if it isn't broke don't try to fix it' There is nothing to suggest that you should be able to play a random starter out of the box. There is nothing *broken* about having to construct a deck before you play, as far as I can tell. Is it better to have a starter deck that has some continuity, probably. But random starter decks are just like big boosters. If the starters were so bad then what makes the boosters so good? > There was no need for the > > preconstructed. > > Are you on crack? Okay I will stop with the flames. How do you get > new players interested in the game? You construct a deck and you give > it to them. The Starters should have already done that. They didn't. > So now we have pre-cons. > They were very necessary. Same as above. You said that if nothing is broken don't fix it. Necessary, no. People could still learn to play, and make a deck with their cards. Easier, nice, helpful, more fun...yes. My problem was that you said you don't want to change anything because it's fine the way it is. I think that, while its okay, it could be made better. 7 years ago they probably would have though you were on crack for talking about preconstructed starters. And I am with you in saying that I think they are a very valuable resource. > They are a nice addition. > > I think if nice was an abbreviation for necessary than I would agree > with you. I don't disagree with you, you are right! > There are possibly other things > > that would be helpful as well. Maybe we could figure them out if it wasn't > > for the: "Screw you" and "Screw you more" bantering of certain people on > > this thread. Any good system needs to be shaken up every so often. If > > there is nothing broken, then we need no new cards. No new sets. Nothing. > > No progress is made by sitting idle. > > This is a game, not social engineering. People should be allowed to > fight. It is entertaining. I don't think fighting is entertaining. I don't like fighting. There is nothing to be gained by fighting. Peace man! Aaron.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:10:54 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >We are aware that his problems were "secondary" concerns. However, you should >remember that we were all working hard to support the game and to show there was >a market for the product. This task becomes rather pointless when someone tells >you that it doesn't matter how successful you are at generating interest, etc. >because they won't meet the demand with product no matter what you do. He was not closing the door forever and said: >We are,however, planning to get some better support for Vampire >players in terms of Organized Play at cons this summer, and a >better and more responsive internal team for answering rules questions. >As one of the most successful TCGs ever, Vampire has a special place in the >hearts of many people here at WotC. While it is not a part of our current >design plans, we do respect deeply the people who have invested in the game... >... >However, we continue to monitor the market and to talk about the brand, and if the >company makes the decision at some point to reawaken the beast, we'll ensure >that you're the first people to know. Compared with what happens to most CCG when they fail, this was comparatively generous. But this wasn't good enough for you and so you started this morality crap (which he hadn't mentioned), trying to blacken the name of his other games. When you started baiting him about the supposed immorality of the samurai in L5R, he naturally defended it. He never said or suggested that he was actively suppressing VTES for this reason - the primary reason for keeping it on hold was that it hadn't been meeting his minimum sales requirements and he didn't see any prospect of it doing so. >Yep. Mostly just a bunch of fanboys...oh, and some higher-ups at WotC. These "higher-ups" may have got excited when he observed that Magic had dubious morality too. They would be the same higher-ups that released precisely zero new product for VTES in 1997 - a clear kiss of death. Ryan was now announcing production plans for 1998. These higher-ups were privy to those plans and approved them. They might have been hoping that he'd pull some rabbit out the hat for VTES (and Netrunner) but, given that they had so singularly failed to do so themselves, could hardly complain if he left these products as he found them. And bear in mind that he was announcing new product for 9 other games - a plan which was already ambitious (over ambitious, as it proved). No, the people who screwed the game up were the WotC mainstream, especially those who were responsible for it after the initial release of Jyhad. It was they who decided to print no further sets after Sabbat. I expect the main reason they don't get all this wrath directed at them is that no senior person ever bothered to communicate with you and so your anger and frustration had no target until Ryan came along. Andrew

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:42:30 -0400, Raille wrote: >> Because you want to collect something, doesn't make it collectable. >> Some people have sets of used underware, but that doesn't make your >> boxers collectable. > >While I understand no one here admits to collecting used underware, the >fact that some people do make them collectable, even if it is to a very >small niche market. One of our number found an unusual collectible at Origins - a ST:Voyager CCG box containing some soiled underwear. A new promo from Decipher - the Captain's Log, perhaps ...? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:869F8FD9600D40BB.0AC8DA91...@lp.airnews.net... > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:10:54 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > But this wasn't good enough for you and so > you started this morality crap (which he hadn't mentioned), FRPG released a statement about what they viewed as moral and acceptable in the games they make. When V:TES' control was given to a company with a strict view about such things, it is very reasonable for us to ask what bearing thier views were going to have on our game. > trying to > blacken the name of his other games. When you started baiting him > about the supposed immorality of the samurai in L5R, he naturally > defended it Either someone did a poor job of quoting and re-quoting in the mailing list or you are being very reckless with your use of the word "you"! I remember seeing someone talk about Samurai and something to do with the morality of what they do but I personally don't know enough about it to start such a topic. [clip] > No, the people who screwed the game up were the WotC mainstream, > especially those who were responsible for it after the initial release > of Jyhad. It was they who decided to print no further sets after > Sabbat. I have no problem with that and never insinuated that Ryan screwed the game up. I told Peter Adkison personally that they shouldn't print any new cards if they can't make money. We're big boys and could understand why they stopped making cards. And, while I appreciate your guesses as to why people at WotC were upset with Ryan, I actually talked to someone who told me why they were upset. -Robert

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<lAH67.129609$ih.25...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > One solution I offered for consideration for dealing with > > > fear of decreased total demand is to delay set availability > > > until some time after initial booster availability, which seems > > > like the safest bet for increasing total sales by offering product > > > when booster sales would presumably be at or near their nadir. > > > > > > > How does the market demand this product? If as you say you delay the > > issuing of complete sets until after the initial rush of booster > > collecting, > > then certainly wouldn't you eliminate from the potential customer > > group those > > customers who have already put together a set. > > Yes, those who merely want to create a set would either have > to wait or do it from boosters (as they must now). The > point of the above suggestion would be shield protect booster > sales from set demand if that were a large concern, not > to maximize set demand. > So how many consumers does that leave? > > > > 2) increased costs of production. > > > > > > I have conceded that increased production costs are a > > > very strong reason indeed for White Wolf to not Ventrue > > > into the market of selling individual cards on demand by title. > > > > > > However, no such argument can be made against the selling > > > of sets. By selling sets, an extra manufacturing step > > > can be completely avoided (where cards are randomized), > > > and entire sheets can be cut then immediately packaged > > > for sale. Overall, this seems like it would decrease costs > > > of production. > > > > I would argue with you there. I am have been in the manufacturing > > business for about 18 years. Manufacturing profitably is setting up > > a specialized multi-step process to create goods at a affordable cost. > > If you package sets then you are not packaging boosters. > > Pre-con decks are a different multi-stage process than boosters, > and that doesn't seem to cause WW undue difficulty, despite > conforming to the above objections. > How do pre-con's satify a demand in the market place? Are they for starting players? Are they good examples of deck building? Who are starter sales targeting? > > To justify > > your changing of the packaging process to sets, you must be able to > > prove before you change that you can make money doing so. Otherwise, > > there is a real possibility of losing money. No established > > businessman > > would enter into such a venture without very real market data showing > > that it would be profitable. > > Of course, if this observation were always true (though I agree > that such sedentary conservatism exists in business), there would > probably never have been a TCG industry at all. I wouldn't be > shocked if there were WW people who would take a swing at > you if you described them to be the above businessmen. > where is the TCG industry today vs. 10 years ago? > > I defined neither collector nor player. For the purposes of this > > arguement they are mutually excusive. A collector collects the > > cards with no intrest in playability, merely in resale value. A > > players collects the cards for playability with no intrest in > > resale value. > > That's a tough model, particularly since I don't know anyone > who falls into it. There probably are exclusive collectors, > but the only exclusive players I know don't own cards, or > at least don't buy them anymore. They borrow mine. > It is a definable model. You lack such definitions in your arguement. Where are you coming from? > > To address your point, didn't you say above (under point 1) > > that the selling of singles by WW would be by definition unprofitable > > at any reasonable price. > > No, I did not say that. > I concede that the logistics of WW entering the singles market > would involve a great deal of complexity and uncertainty, such > that I won't argue that WW should do it. > > > I do not believe that players will spend $100 dollars for > > a set (this is a hypothetical price) just to aquire one to ten cards. > > If it's just one to ten cards, of course you are correct, but > it's probably like one to ten cards that the player really wants, > plus maybe 30 others or more that the player would not mind > having more of. As an exercise, browse the Final Nights > checklist to see if this correlates with your preferences. o I lack one card, Abomination. I could use one but I don't need to go spend $100 dollars to get it. > > > So that leaves collectors. I have no idea how many VTES > > collectors > > we have out there. So if as you say the printing of the sets puts a > > ceiling on > > the value of cards wouldn't that dissuade collecters from buying > > either boosters > > or the set because the value of their cards will never increase beyond > > a certain point. > > I guess I just disagree with this, I think players would buy > the sets. But just as important, the secondary market becomes > much more efficient when the inputs are known with certainty. > This allows better distribution of individual game pieces in the > face of the idea that WW may not be able to sell singles > without great risk. Do you disagree with my arguement or my definitions. How would you define your customers. > > > > 4) If it ain't broken, don't fix it. > > > > > > My original criticism of White Wolf makes plain > > > my opinion that I believe that it is broken. > > > > > > The way this game is sold is terribly wasteful, and inneficient > > > to the point where a secondary market is generated to > > > distribute its game pieces to both players and collectors. > > > As far as I know, such markets do not exist for non TCGs, > > > unless those games are no longer produced by their > > > manufacturer. > > > > ROTFLOL, whew! that's a good one. Stop it. My sides hurt. > > The key word here is as far as you know. You don't know. > > Scrye has printed a Collectible Card Game Price Guide for > > for what I can tell is every single card game ever printed. > > It is as thick as your phonebook/Bible. > > Right, you can stop laughing, as I'm assuming that all > those price lists are for card games, as I described > above. My point was that secondary markets are a > function of the trading card industry. Did Scrye > even exist before Magic? If it did, I imagine that > it was not a pricing guide for collectibles. > Have you ever been to a flea market? or the Goodwill? Secondary markets exist for everything. > > It is actual physcial proof that > > secondary markets exist for other card games. > > I never claimed otherwise. But to illustrate my point, > you'll probably not find the price of a Monopoly hotel on > any such list. Similar lists do exist for antiques and > other collectibles, but the only such collectible that > I know had such a list while it was manufactured were > Beanie Babies. I suppose used autos have the same > types of lists, but stess on the word "used." Correct, Monopoly is a non-creative game. You do nothing more than open up the box, read the rules, and put the pieces in play. BTW, if you are missing some hotels; you can contact the company that makes Monopoly and for a price buy a replacement set. > > > It very well may be that "it ain't broken" from WW's > > > financial standpoint, and perhaps offering consumers > > > another way to buy the cards from the manufacturer > > > would destroy the game by some mechanism that is > > > unknown to me, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful > > > argument as to how. > > > > Let me explain it to you. The mechanism is called capitalism. > > You produce a product at a cost. You then sell it for more > > than that cost. The difference is called Profit. Profit can be > > either negitive or positive. Negative Profits are called Losses. > > Losses are bad as they eat up the supply of money you have. This > > is not a good thing. > > Stage 1: Collect Underpants > Stage 3: Profit WTF does this mean? > > > [snip] > > Do you understand? > > Not at all, I am unclear as to why set sales cannot > flow through the same distributors as the other > packaged merchandise. I don't think I ever attacked > the manufacturer-to-retailer distribution scheme, > just the randomly distributed cards-in-packs > distribution scheme. Apologies if that was unclear. I have no idea what you snipped but sales have to flow through distributors of some sort. Either in-house at White Wolf or out of house. Okay so you agree that distributors are necessary. Why would a distributor buy a product if they could not resell it at a profit? > > > My problem is that I do not think you have taken the real > > world considerations into play before you make your points. > > Well, I've been a consumer of Deckmaster products for > a long time (ever since the middle of The Dark print run > for M:tG). I've bought M:tG, Jyhad, and watched my > friends buy any number of other games in the industry > (Netrunner, L5R, even Dragon Dice), and also been a > consumer of many traditional box games. > So do you eat cereal for breakfast? Do you think that qualifies you to run a General Mills that makes your cereal? or even give them advice on how to run their business? > I've seen both the good and the bad sides of Magic as > its creators-cum-businessmen took the game through > its growing pains and inflicted some of those pains on its > customers. I've watched the development of the entire > TCG industry from inception to boom to shake out to > where it is now. Interesting, do you know what running a gaming company requires? > The ideas I've discussed in this thread have, > in many cases, been expressions of the real world lessons > those observations taught me, ideas of how some of the > serious shortcomings of a novel game format could be > addressed. Define these shortcomings as they apply to VTES. > So no, I believe I have had at least one foot in the > real world during this discussion, and where I have > strayed, I have at least been within sight of the > real world. > Do you define the inside of a gaming store the real world? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <41A67.10750$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:la5Zr9Kc...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <4Gs67.10576$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The >> Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >> >"Contains one rulebook and 76 collectable game cards." >> > >> >Congratulations, you can read. WotC doesn't print VTES. Much like their >> >version of fame says one thing, white wolfs says another. Which one is >more >> >up to date? >> >> White Wolf say it's a collectible card game too. >> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/eternalstrugglepress.html >> http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/writers'%20bios/greenburg.html >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Checklist_SabbatWar.html >> >> Congratulations, you didn't read. :( (For reference, that took me about >> 15 seconds to find.) > >James, do you exist to add any meaning comments? Yes. I provided a list of references where White Wolf specifically refer to it as a CCG, disproving the assertion that it wasn't. Whether you care to debate this is an entirely different issue. That I follow-up to your post does not require you reply, nor does it exclude others from replying. Some discussions can occur in that manner, others don't. If you don't want to reply, don't. If others do, they will. >By the way: Congratulations, you didn't read, I did. >and no one asked you to. You posted to a group I read. If you don't want me to read posts you write, why post them to a group I read? >ME: "Regardless. I have no interest in debating collectability of a game." So I'm not allowed to post some references disproving the point you, and others, have tried to make? If it was directed at *you* and you alone, it would've gone by e-mail. It wasn't. This is a newsgroup, providing a forum for more than one person. It is also worth noting that debating the collectibility of a game can be considered a different matter from whether it is a "trading card game" or a "collectible card game". Discussing the "collectibility" of the game could be considered (by some) as addressing the points regarding how to make a game more or less collectible, more/less desirable for collectors, rather than simply collectible per se. >As in, I don't care. Debating verbage is a big waste of time. Apparently >talking to you is also a big waste of time. You mis-understand how newsgroups work. They are not about "talking to me". If you want to talk to me, use e-mail, ICQ, a query window on IRC, `talk` (or somesuch) on a Unix machine I'm using, or similar. If you wish to address a potentially large group of people who are having a discussion, a conversation, a debate, an argument or what have you, with many points leading off in different directions, that's when you use a newsgroup. (Moderated newsgroups excepted, in some circumstances, of course.) The point has been made by you, and others, that V:TES is not a CCG and that WW don't say it is. I was dis-proving that point with references. Do I have to write to you to get your persmission before I do so? You don't have to debate the point, no-one will make you. You can just move on with the rest of your life happily. Other people, however, can see the post and discuss it (or not) as they choose. The point was simply being made in public. Your post was convenient, in asserting that WW don't regard it is as a CCG, when I searched for the relevant links. If you want somewhere where people only respond with items of interest to you, newsgroups are the wrong place. If you want somewhere where people will only respond with something you'll want to read and respond to again, newsgroups are the wrong place. People can and almost certainly will post things which you don't want to reply to, on all sorts of topics. You don't have to reply to them. >Your replies avoid all substance. So, providing criticisms of decks and strategies, answers to rules queries, discussions of meta-game points, discussions of Jyhad as a system in comparison to others and so forth provide no substance. Providing detailed references to a point in hand, for the use of all and sundry, provides no substance. Really? No, really really? *snigger* >You do nothing but try to make other >people look bad, Not true. I can cite one post and disprove this comment (say, Message- ID: <h5$oDgXK0...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>). Please retract it, as it is not true. >and I cannot understand your motivation for that. It may help if you realise that I don't do what you think. See citation above for one such example. Search google for many other examples counter to your belief. >I can, however, understand why people react to your posts the way they do. *shrug* You think I "do nothing but try to make other people look bad". This is demonstrably not the case with a minute's research. If people come to conclusions without having done *any* research, I can't be responsible for their conclusions and reactions. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <hDJ67.12592$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >James is helping you talk about nothing. Not true. It may be nothing of interest to you; this is different. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <WlG67.129081$ih.25...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I am curious as to whether the above links reflect mistakes >by White Wolf's staff or whether WW intentionally >represents the product on its website in a different manner >than on the product packaging and in the rulebooks. One of them was a press-release. Whilst the biography of a staff member, and the text about card sets, may be unimportant enough to allow the possibility that a mistake was made, the press-release would almost certainly have been written and vetted by a group of half a dozen or more people (usually including at least *someone* from the marketing department, just to check that it fits with company policy or somesuch). That the release also contained the CCG term multiple times also makes it increasingly unlikely that it was a mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <869F8FD9600D40BB.0AC8DA91...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >He was not closing the door forever and said: > >>We are,however, planning to get some better support for Vampire >>players in terms of Organized Play at cons this summer, and a >>better and more responsive internal team for answering rules questions. > >>As one of the most successful TCGs ever, Vampire has a special place in the >>hearts of many people here at WotC. While it is not a part of our current >>design plans, we do respect deeply the people who have invested in the game... >>... >>However, we continue to monitor the market and to talk about the brand, and if the >>company makes the decision at some point to reawaken the beast, we'll ensure >>that you're the first people to know. You missed out: "Ah, letter H. For VtES fans, "H" might as well stand for "Hold" which is where VtES is in terms of future expansions. There is no chance for a VtES product in 1998, and virtually no chance for new VtES in 1999." In the context of his later comments, this meant to everyone I saw responding: - Nothing in '98. Nothing in '99. Quite *why* this was so is uncertain. White Wolf have shown that, even without the WotC juggernaut pushing it, V:TES has more than enough demand for it to justify the effort - which would mostly amount to: 3 (say) staff-members working with LSJ to create card texts and acting as a Design Team for that expansion, co-ordinating play-testing and commissioning art. With a sensible finance department, this can all be recouped. Indeed, WotC *did* show that they wanted to do something similar before the game reverted to White Wolf (some of the discussions regarding the renewal of the licence from White Wolf, the subsequent decision to licence the Deckmaster technology to White Wolf and the decision for WotC to drop their support for the game were done at a high enough level that some of the people doing the stuff on the floor didn't know (apparently) what was going on). Suggestions of a mini expansion, with a single sheet for each of V:TES, Netrunner and Spellfire (I think it was those three) were mooted. Display boxes with a third of each were also suggested. (A number of people murmured about this. V:TES had specific areas of support, in the US and Europe. Spellfire was still going strong in parts of Germany. Netrunner was, presumably, similarly successful somewhere - not following the game, I couldn't say.) The concept of recycling art to keep costs down low was also suggested. With Netrunner and Rage both being around at WotC, various cyber-punk techno-elements could have been sourced that way. I imagine it wouldn't be terribly difficult to have asked that nice, cuddly Mr. Wieck if he wouldn't mind terribly letting you borrow a few pieces of artwork for a small fee (and a fee to the artist, of course, which would most likely be reduced for another printing, rather than original commission). Playtesting wouldn't be terribly hard. With someone like LSJ actively involved, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to shuffle off most of the work to him. If you set up closed mailing lists for playtesters, allowing them to communicate with one another to try and speed the whole evolution process along ("Wow, you can do that with Augustus' Cigar Case?" "Yup, and just think about how that interacts with Daytime Slumber!" "Oh jees, you guys, do that with that new ally Donatello (Ninja Turtle) and just think of what can happen." - such things happen more slowly in isolated groups) and then get the three staff members to sit down and read it on, say, a Friday afternoon, issuing a Playtesters Rules Team statement, card text changes and such like, it doesn't take a whole lot of work. Promoting Magic as the key game at the time (and potentially Pokémon) was understandable. The world paper market was going stupid. The number of slots you could get at a printers/collators for doing thing like Magic was similarly small, comparatively. You couldn't afford to "waste" a slot you had at the printers, or waste card stock. That Netrunner was promoted above V:TES in line of production raised a large number of eyebrows. Some of this was, of course, minor jealousy, but a lot of it was "Erm, but guys, Netrunner just doesn't sell that well, from all our forays (and V:TES has a fairly global network of players, even if there is localised strong support in a number of areas). If you put your toe in the water with Netrunner, you're going to fight it positively luke warm at best." V:TES was a game that was selling out sets of Sabbat. 1st printing sold out. 2nd printing sold extremely well too. This showed there was demand. That the game had only just broken even on this level of demand generally showed that someone at WotC had Messed Up (tm). However, the demand was not only there, it could be seen to be there. But sure, V:TES gets put back a bit. We understand, you have to do what you think is best for business reasons. However: - Dancey's subsequent outbursts and refusal to address a large number of points raised in a manner which addressed the actual substance of the holes being pointed out set the wrong tone. V:TES wasn't getting any (card) support in '98 and '99. That's dealable with. When you have a manager who is setting a tone of "And I *won't* be supporting this game at all, because it's evil" (which is the tone he was setting and doing *nothing* to counteract) the suggestion is very much that it doesn't matter what business arguments you put to him, he won't act on business matters. When that's his *job*, he assembles his own noose as far as that line is concerned. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > > > Stage 1: Collect Underpants > > Stage 3: Profit > > WTF does this mean? It's a reference to an episode of South Park in which the Underpant Gnomes collect underpants. Often they remove them whilst actually on their victims. The other strand of the story is about a coffee shop chain opening a branch in South park. When the kids visit the UPGs they are shown a wall chart with the UPGs corporate plan on it, as detailed above. > <snip>

On 22 Jul 2001 01:06:49 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Factually incorrect, or at least half the truth. In Classic rage the >best expansion was the Wyrm, where you got to be the bad guys. And >even in Wyrm-free games the werewolves spent most of their time >fighting each other. IIRC their mission is to be warriors for Gaia and >in particular the Wyld aspect of the Weaver/Wyrm/Wyld triad, no >individual part of which is good or evil - they are just out of >balance, and this impends Apocalypse. Let's let the game speak for itself: "Welcome to Rage, the collectible trading card game based on the storytelling game Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Each Rage player controls a pack of savage and heroic werewolves (called Garou). Garou packs often unite to combat the evil force known as the Wyrm, but equally often battle one another for the ultimate position of pack dominance. A pack achieves victory by conquering the Wyrm, by overpowering rival Garou, or performing heroic tasks." It's more morally uplifting than Pokemon, IMO. Not that that's saying much as Pokemon is about as moral as cock-fighting - you find exotic creatures in the wild and train them to fight each other for your gratification and glory. >Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red >Talons like to eat people, for example. That's no random example - they are the Garou hard-liners. There are nasty Pokemon too. >Of course, sometimes the mechanic is right; but in this case WW fixed >the car. WW have taken a low-cost approach to the game - fan labour, cheap recycled art, small print runs, no licence fee. This is similar to what Z-Man have done with Shadowfist and it's the only way that games like this can keep going. It's not the business that WotC was in. It's kinda like going to a back-street garage rather than a main dealer. Andrew

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:00:10 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >Either someone did a poor job of quoting and re-quoting in the mailing list or >you are being very reckless with your use of the word "you"! I remember seeing >someone talk about Samurai and something to do with the morality of what they do >but I personally don't know enough about it to start such a topic. You're the one who started the morality thread by citing "rumors". Chris Sabol then picked up the ball and ran with it, attacking the morality of L5R's Samurai. The rest then followed which has now ballooned into this huge myth that Dancey tried to kill VTES because he didn't like it. >And, while I appreciate your guesses as to why people at WotC were upset with >Ryan, I actually talked to someone who told me why they were upset. You then quoted what appeared to be a private email from Dancey. In discussing what it would take to get the game going again, he starts out by saying: >the executives of the company at levels higher than mine would >have to be behind the product. In other words, the higher-ups weren't supporting the game. These would be the same higher-ups that insisted on the name change for moral reasons. Face it, the insistence on high moral standards and PC guidelines came right from the top in that company, i.e. Peter Adkison. Dancey's punishment was to be given charge of reviving WotC's most high-profile brand name, Dungeons & Dragons. He's made a great success of that in a characteristically innovative way with the Open Gaming Licence for D20 which is now an irresistible bandwagon. I haven't read this but wouldn't be surprised if there are ethical strings attached. Does this mean that there will never be a D20 version of Vampire the Masquerade ...? Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<B49642379CD1F7D5.EFF8AEE8...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, he just can't shake off those dam'd Klingons .... ;) > > Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > One of our number found an unusual collectible at Origins - a > ST:Voyager CCG box containing some soiled underwear. A new promo from > Decipher - the Captain's Log, perhaps ...? ! Down right sick. Of course the logical explaination is that he was using his card box for his laundry. Or he was trying out a new anti-theft device. Raille

James Coupe wrote: > - Dancey's subsequent outbursts and refusal to address a large number of > points raised in a manner which addressed the actual substance of the > holes being pointed out set the wrong tone. V:TES wasn't getting any > (card) support in '98 and '99. That's dealable with. When you have a > manager who is setting a tone of "And I *won't* be supporting this game > at all, because it's evil" (which is the tone he was setting and doing > *nothing* to counteract) the suggestion is very much that it doesn't > matter what business arguments you put to him, he won't act on business > matters. When that's his *job*, he assembles his own noose as far as > that line is concerned. > And this is the guist of the reason why Dancy is looked down on so much here in the Newgroup. Of all the VTES player I know, they either know nothing about this, or look down on Mr Dancy's guidance of Vtes, while he was in charge. Which to sum up, amounts to nothing and more nothing. People can and do make mistakes, this happens to have been a very bad one for Mr Dancy. At least he seems to have done well in other areas. Although if he left the game business entirely and became a postal worker, I would not expect my mail service to improve. Raille

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<77CFD05C6193E9A0.B318130F...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 22 Jul 2001 01:06:49 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Factually incorrect, or at least half the truth. In Classic rage the > >best expansion was the Wyrm, where you got to be the bad guys. And > >even in Wyrm-free games the werewolves spent most of their time > >fighting each other. IIRC their mission is to be warriors for Gaia and > >in particular the Wyld aspect of the Weaver/Wyrm/Wyld triad, no > >individual part of which is good or evil - they are just out of > >balance, and this impends Apocalypse. > > Let's let the game speak for itself: And why not! > > "Welcome to Rage, the collectible trading card game based on the > storytelling game Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Each Rage player controls > a pack of savage and heroic werewolves (called Garou). Garou packs > often unite to combat the evil force known as the Wyrm, but equally > often battle one another for the ultimate position of pack dominance. > A pack achieves victory by conquering the Wyrm, by overpowering rival > Garou, or performing heroic tasks." Fair enough, and i don't have my Wyrm intro handy so this is only a paraphrase: "Join the winning side, join the Wyrm. Not for babies, whiners or wuss-bags." But let me state again that, evil as its current manifestation may be, it was the trapping of the Wyrm by the Weaver that drove it mad and made it bad, which it originally wasn't. In the Apocalypse and the card-game the Garou are really striving [hopelessly, as you would expect] to put the Wyld/Weaver/Wyrm triad back into balance. > > It's more morally uplifting than Pokemon, IMO. Not that that's saying > much as Pokemon is about as moral as cock-fighting - you find exotic > creatures in the wild and train them to fight each other for your > gratification and glory. Yeah, did you know that the designer was inspired by the practice when he was a child in Japan of capturing Big Insects and putting them in cages? He thought today's urbanised youth were missing out on something, and he was right. > > >Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red > >Talons like to eat people, for example. > > That's no random example - they are the Garou hard-liners. Alright, well here's some other examples: the Get of Fenris are alarmingly close to fascism [their tribal Glyph is actually a Fylfot]. The Shadow Lords are so close to being bad that one of their characters can be played in either Gaia or Wyrm packs. The Black Furlies hate men so much that they reject the masculine/penetrative cult of orthographical correctness. The Bone Gnawers consort with the Samedi. The Silver Fangs revel in incest and its associated genetic degeneracy. The Children of Gaia are classic eco-fascists. The Wendigo also like to eat people, especially if they are European colonists of North America. Mind you, they have some reason to be resentful, having been the victims of Get/Iron Rider/Silver Fang-inspired pogroms in the recent past. The Fianna are the IRA with hairy feet. i'ld like to say i could go on, but for the life of me i can't remember anything about the Stargazers, Silent Striders, Uktena or Glass Walkers who always seemed to me to be unnecessary filling. Perhaps James C who is a bit of a shape-changer will fill us in on their little quirks - if not, there is a handy little myth-and-reality guide in Werewolf: The Wild West which does so. ALL the clans beat up the poor old non-Garou shapechangers, i'm sure about that. Off-topic, you can be a werewolf/werebear in Diablo II: Lord of Destruction. My Hardcore werewolf is called HuntsByHellfire, and he has reached the Crystalline Passage under Mount Arreat. Don't even THINK about trying to make a dirty joke out of that. Michael's Werebear Huntsby-Ichor is close on his furry heels. There are > nasty Pokemon too. And a good thing too, IMO. i always try to put Gengar and Zubat/Golbat into my Pokemon decks. And, of course, Porygon, possibly the stupidestly overpowered card ever for any CCG [neutered in the Gym Leader expansion, though. Sigh]. > > >Of course, sometimes the mechanic is right; but in this case WW fixed > >the car. > > WW have taken a low-cost approach to the game - fan labour, cheap > recycled art, small print runs, no licence fee. This is similar to > what Z-Man have done with Shadowfist and it's the only way that games > like this can keep going. It's not the business that WotC was in. Surely that is EXACTLY what FRPG did when they brought out Rage II: Snakeyes. There were many good things about that game, still are, but they made a BIG mistake IMO in essentially ditching all the old rage cards and the fan-base with them. This mistake was NOT made by WW when they resurrected VTES. Having been a fan of all these games i'm actually kinda glad that Dancey didn't pick out VTES for, erm, Improvement. > It's kinda like going to a back-street garage rather than a main > dealer. i take my car to Olive Green Motors. So did Nigel Mansell when he lived around here. There's back street garages and back street garages, i'ld suggest. > > Andrew i'm not really understanding why you are pursuing this thread, to be honest. Dancey thought VTES was unsaveable. We thought he was wrong, and events have proved that we were right. When we said, look, VTES is a derivative of VtM, VtM is the second biggest-selling RPG, so it really OUGHT to be possible to get VTES into the number 2 slot of CCGs after Magic [which is kinda DnD-based so SHOULD be on top, because DnD is number 1 in RPGs], he came back with "Well, i think VTES is immoral". It's nice that you at least can see something good about Dancey - i hate to be negative about people, in general - but surely you must see that there's a problem with somebody who says "i'm canning this game for commercial reasons" and then, when those commercial reasons are questioned on logical grounds, changes his response to "alright, whatever the commercial facts of the matter i'm STILL going to can this game because i find it repugnant". i'm just baffled by your apparent belief that we should admire and defer to his commercial judgement in respect of CCGs AND his moral position on VTES, given that both were/are, quite obviously, questionable. And as for DnD, well, that was a success before Dancey, and it still is. Good luck to it! Because Mrs Thatcher won the Falklands war and oversaw the successful building of the Channel Tunnel, does it follow that everything she did whilst Prime Minister was a Good Thing, would you say? Now, i agree with you and Dancey that vampires ARE bad and that they are NOT admirable, but i think it's a stretch from there to say that VTES is immoral. A major, perhaps THE major thread in VtM AND VTES is the quest for redemption from evil - cf Golconda, Humanitas, Atonement and Return to Innocence. Monsters we are, lest monsters we become is the slogan, isn't it? And while it admits of all sorts of interpretations, total moral blindness can't easily be counted among them, i'ld suggest. The flip side of this coin is the self-righteous and hormonally-challenged werewolves who, whatever their ostensible motivation, are actually busy dragging down everything they're supposed to be protecting by their pride and, yes, moral blindness to the truth that the end does NOT justify the means.

gfa...@earthlink.net (George Fagin) wrote in message news:<3237275d.01072...@posting.google.com>... > legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > > gfa...@earthlink.net (George Fagin) wrote in message news:<3237275d.01071...@posting.google.com>... > > > >Any other games I should check out? > > > > > > It is out of print and hard to find, but The Fury of Dracula by Games > > > Workshop is well worth the search. > > > > Agreed, but it was HORRIBLY easy for the Dracula character to cheat in > > this game, IME. And even if you didn't cheat there was a way to break > > the game by spending lots of time at sea if you were the vampire [i > > don't remember the details... > < [Snip remainder of message] > > I don't cheat, and don't play with people who do, so that isn't an > issue for me. I suppose one could have Dracula record his > moves/placements as in Scotland Yard if you wanted reassurance and > didn't mind the hassle. It's nice that you can be so sure of never playing with people who cheat and never cheating yourself. Personally, as i get older my patience with game mechanics that ALLOW cheating or other arbitrary events to compromise one's fun becomes less and less - and this is true even if the cheating or arbitrary events don't actually HAPPEN. i think a big reason why i got into the Magic and VTES CCGs in such a big way was that they offered the opportunity to play RPGs without putting yourself at the mercy of a Dungeon master. > > As to spending great amounts of time at sea, Dracula loses a blood > point every time he embarks, is at risk from 'Control Storms', and > can't place or draw chits while out there. 'Shipping Agents' is a > major problem, especially if the port of departure is known to the > Hunters. As i say, it's a while since we played this and maybe we were doing it wrong. But i don't think so. All i remember about my little trick was that it involved lots of trips across the Irish Sea. > > My experience is that a player's perception of which side has the > advantage can change back and forth several times as new strategies > are developed - the reason I consider it a great game. i do like the game, don't get me wrong, and i hope lots of other people will try it and that they will share your view that it is great, or at least good [which is my view].

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:18:03 -0400, Raille wrote: >Of all the VTES player I know, they either know nothing about this, or >look down on Mr Dancy's guidance of Vtes, while he was in charge. Which >to sum up, amounts to nothing and more nothing. >Although if he left the game business entirely and became a postal >worker, I would not expect my mail service to improve. I don't suppose you know any better but it's this sort of ignorant libel that incenses me. The press release that started all this announced over 50 different product releases for 9 different game lines. Netrunner and VTES got little more than fine words but that's mainly because they were late additions to the FRPG stable. The games were dead when Dancey got them and it was unrealistic to expect him to resuscitate them. He was under no obligation to do so and only a fanboy with tunnel vision would think otherwise. The games universe does not revolve around VTES which is just one of many minor CCG. That was was always the problem with the WotC CCG - always in the shadow of Magic - the centre of the universe for most folk at WotC. Andrew

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<UurVGxqW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > - Dancey's subsequent outbursts and refusal to address a large number of > points raised in a manner which addressed the actual substance of the > holes being pointed out set the wrong tone. V:TES wasn't getting any > (card) support in '98 and '99. That's dealable with. When you have a > manager who is setting a tone of "And I *won't* be supporting this game > at all, because it's evil" (which is the tone he was setting and doing > *nothing* to counteract) the suggestion is very much that it doesn't > matter what business arguments you put to him, he won't act on business > matters. When that's his *job*, he assembles his own noose as far as > that line is concerned. James, All things being equal. I am rather glad the way things worked out, and I wouldn' t trade that for 3 more expansions if WotC still retained the franchise. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Jul 2001 06:21:54 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Alright, well here's some other examples: the Get of Fenris are >alarmingly close to fascism [their tribal Glyph is actually a Fylfot]. >The Shadow Lords are so close to being bad that one of their >characters can be played in either Gaia or Wyrm packs. The Black >Furlies hate men so much that they reject the masculine/penetrative >cult of orthographical correctness. The Bone Gnawers consort with the >Samedi. The Silver Fangs revel in incest and its associated genetic >degeneracy. The Children of Gaia are classic eco-fascists. The Wendigo >also like to eat people, especially if they are European colonists of >North America. Mind you, they have some reason to be resentful, having >been the victims of Get/Iron Rider/Silver Fang-inspired pogroms in the >recent past. The Fianna are the IRA with hairy feet. You're laying it on a bit thick. To me, the wilder elements are akin to military outfits like the US Marines or the SAS that you might find in wargames. They may be sons-of-bitches but they're _our_ sons-of-bitches. Of course, it helps if you're a bit of a tree-hugger and dog-lover too but I am. >And, of course, Porygon, possibly the >stupidestly overpowered card ever for any CCG [neutered in the Gym >Leader expansion, though. Sigh]. Neutered how - errata, MRP or what? >i'm not really understanding why you are pursuing this thread Partly because it's there. And partly because I've always thought Dancey to be one of the more interesting and intelligent characters in the games industry. His posts are always a pleasure to read, even if I don't agree with them. I don't like to see him being slagged off behind his back, especially on such flimsy grounds. >When we said, look, VTES is >a derivative of VtM, VtM is the second biggest-selling RPG, so it >really OUGHT to be possible to get VTES into the number 2 slot of CCGs >after Magic [which is kinda DnD-based so SHOULD be on top, because DnD >is number 1 in RPGs], he came back with "Well, i think VTES is >immoral". It's nice that you at least can see something good about >Dancey - i hate to be negative about people, in general - but surely >you must see that there's a problem with somebody who says "i'm >canning this game for commercial reasons" and then, when those >commercial reasons are questioned on logical grounds, changes his >response to "alright, whatever the commercial facts of the matter i'm >STILL going to can this game because i find it repugnant". You're still repeating the Big Lie. Dancey didn't say this. When pressed later by European fans who said that there was a market for the game there, he said that he'd arrange for another expansion if WotC Europe would place a firm pre-order for the minimum profitable quantity. If there was a market there, he was ready to satisfy it. >Now, i agree with you and Dancey that vampires ARE bad and that they >are NOT admirable, but i think it's a stretch from there to say that >VTES is immoral. I think his point was that having such games in your portfolio was bad for the company's image and so bad for business (i.e. would hurt sales). He made reference to incidents in VTES' past - not clear whether this was the Jyhad name or something else. This image problem was a black mark against the game, for sure, but he never flatly ruled out more development because of it. Some folk suggested that a Hunter/Slayer expansion would be a good way of addressing this but he didn't go for it - said that he expected that existing fans would be hostile. It's a shame he didn't give this a try as I would probably have liked it. Was the Wyrm expansion for Rage a success? Did players like playing the opposition? Andrew

In message <3B5C15FB...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >Although if he left the game business entirely and became a postal >worker, I would not expect my mail service to improve. Indeed. The D&D 3rd is kinda nice, but there are a number of holes in it. The biggest of which is the fact that you can now slice through wizards at close range at twice the speed you ever could. Which is bad, mmmkay? That, and the new turning rules just plain suck. (The attack of opportunity rules. If you go toe-to-toe with a wizard, you get your normal attack(s) but his spell-casting provokes an attack of opportunity and that's his weapon, so he *needs* to be able to spell- cast. I've been toying with making the attack of opportunity a normal attack (in that you roll attack, roll damage etc.) but *only* using the damage for concentration rolls, and not applying it to the character. The concentration roll still works exactly the same, but the wizard keeps his hit-points.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Jul 2001 06:21:54 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i'm not really understanding why you are pursuing this thread, to be >honest. Dancey thought VTES was unsaveable. We thought he was wrong, >and events have proved that we were right. When we said, look, VTES is >a derivative of VtM, VtM is the second biggest-selling RPG, so it >really OUGHT to be possible to get VTES into the number 2 slot of CCGs >after Magic [which is kinda DnD-based so SHOULD be on top, because DnD >is number 1 in RPGs], he came back with "Well, i think VTES is >immoral". From memory, his actual response was that VtM had saturated its market of goth vampire-wannabees and the market wouldn't be there again until another generation grew up. He also pointed out that a CCG's appeal was to the anal, geeky type who was into complex game mechanics, rules and collecting. The folk who liked VtM were into role-playing, dressing up and free-form, simplified gaming. There was therefore a poor overlap between the two. I see little love of the RPG from fans of the VTES CCG here. It seems that he was quite correct. Andrew

In message <85823346B29C3CAC.AB3E9722...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Netrunner and VTES got little more than fine words but that's >mainly because they were late additions to the FRPG stable. The games >were dead when Dancey got them and it was unrealistic to expect him to >resuscitate them. Why? White Wolf have shown that without the might of WotC and FRPG behind them, they can take a card game, get the players heavily involved and "resuscitate" it successfully. All the pointers which demonstrated that this was a more than realistic possibility were available to WotC. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <97eaf33b.01072...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >James, >All things being equal. I am rather glad the way things worked out, >and I wouldn' t trade that for 3 more expansions if WotC still >retained the franchise. Yup. However, at the time, as I recall, the feelings went like this: Pre-Dancey: *sigh* WotC are just leaving V:TES alone. If we go hard enough, we might get them to re-print Sabbat. But it just plain sucks, you know? We can do whatever we want to prove that it's a perfectly viable, profitable game and they just won't listen! So, what about if we lobby for them to sell it on, or just imagine it as wishful thinking? Who'd be good? Well, FRPG might be good. They can be committed to fans, they can work well with plotted backgrounds, they can produce well-tested products which aren't about milking players dry. Newsflash: Wizards buy FRPG Oh bugger. Newsflash: FRPG given internal responsibility for V:TES Woo. Then a few people wonder about the product guidelines (which when the buy-out etc. was going on, most of us didn't even *know* about, I'd guess) and everything happens as detailed. During the whole thing, a few mentions were made at a number of points about a White Wolf buy-out. This raised a number of difficult points: - their card games blew chunks as, to coin a term, SCGs (strategic card games) - they seemed to have shuffled all their card games off (Rage had just been sold on to FRPG, Changeling was being (rightfully) ignored </troll> - Legbiter will be along in a second to defend it ;-) ) - would they have the muscle to pull something off in, effectively, an entirely new world for them? I think a lot of us *hoped* they'd do it well, but equally feared it could go wrong. When the entire licence switch thing happened (which took everyone on the ground, without a friendly spy wherever, by surprise), I think the fact that White Wolf showed within the following month, say: - we'll listen to players; - we're going to actually learn and play the game ourselves; - we're going to keep LSJ on *and* keep him heavily involved; - Steve Wieck will not be some aloof CEO (I don't know what his actual title is, sorry), he'll actually respond every now and then to your concerns personally; - we want to back you up with prize support; - we're not going to do Rage II and scrap everything; - we're going to be sensible and just do a small expansion (in terms of *new* cards first); and so on, it exceeded our wildest expectations of what was possible. I can honestly say that when the whole FRPG ideas were mooted, then FRPG was bought on, then we were allocated to FRPG, I don't know anyone who believed that WW could make as good a go of it as they have. We got lucky and I'm very grateful that we did. But I don't think anyone expected it at the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

legbiter wrote: > It's nice that you can be so sure of never playing with people who > cheat and never cheating yourself. Personally, as i get older my > patience with game mechanics that ALLOW cheating or other arbitrary > events to compromise one's fun becomes less and less - and this is > true even if the cheating or arbitrary events don't actually HAPPEN. i > think a big reason why i got into the Magic and VTES CCGs in such a > big way was that they offered the opportunity to play RPGs without > putting yourself at the mercy of a Dungeon master. Unfortunately, at the tournament level at least, cheating in Magic has become something of an art form, and you're putting yourself at the mercy of other players and judges. Tammy

In message <3B5C4A3C...@mediaone.net>, Tammy Coxen <tam...@mediaone.net> writes >Unfortunately, at the tournament level at least, cheating in Magic has become something of an art form, Can we enter interesting Magic plays for the Turner Prize? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:69885E7DD656EABF.623DF420...@lp.airnews.net... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:00:10 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > > >Either someone did a poor job of quoting and re-quoting in the mailing list or > >you are being very reckless with your use of the word "you"! I remember seeing > >someone talk about Samurai and something to do with the morality of what they do > >but I personally don't know enough about it to start such a topic. > > You're the one who started the morality thread by citing "rumors". > Chris Sabol then picked up the ball and ran with it, attacking the > morality of L5R's Samurai. I don't recall the exact timing but this sounds fine. WotC gives FRPG control of V:TES. Fine. Someone points out that FRPG has this [new?] statement that concerns the morality of their games. Again, it seems quite reasonable to find out how this was going to affect V:TES now that it was under their care. > >And, while I appreciate your guesses as to why people at WotC were upset with > >Ryan, I actually talked to someone who told me why they were upset. > > You then quoted what appeared to be a private email from Dancey. In > discussing what it would take to get the game going again, he starts > out by saying: > > >the executives of the company at levels higher than mine would > >have to be behind the product. > > In other words, the higher-ups weren't supporting the game. Right. We understand that the higher-ups didn't have a business reason to do more V:TES. > These would be the same higher-ups that insisted on the name change for > moral reasons. Face it, the insistence on high moral standards and PC > guidelines came right from the top in that company, i.e. Peter > Adkison. I don't have a problem with a company wanting high moral standards. But you're a fool if you think Ryan was just parroting a specific standard from Peter Adkison. Don't you think its a bit unlikely that the same individuals who created the game would find the game offensive? > Dancey's punishment was [clip] Neither of us have any idea what his boss said to him or what punishment he may or may not have received--other than that he wasn't fired. -Robert

Nah - it's something of an art form, but not a _good_ art form... Or maybe it is, but since we're talking about cheating we wouldn't know, since the good ones don't get caught... Tammy [ quoted text not captured ]

Why not V-TES (pronounced VEE-TESS)? > From now on I'll just call it 'That Game'. > > Unless LSJ is willing to change the name again? Maybe call it 'Fang-Wars' or > something... I'm sure you could just print up some new card-backings :)

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I don't suppose you know any better but it's this sort of ignorant > libel that incenses me. The press release that started all this > announced over 50 different product releases for 9 different game > lines. Netrunner and VTES got little more than fine words but that's > mainly because they were late additions to the FRPG stable. The games > were dead when Dancey got them and it was unrealistic to expect him to > resuscitate them. He was under no obligation to do so and only a > fanboy with tunnel vision would think otherwise. The games universe > does not revolve around VTES which is just one of many minor CCG. > That was was always the problem with the WotC CCG - always in the > shadow of Magic - the centre of the universe for most folk at WotC. I would be happy if Mr. Dancy had simply left things at that point. Unfortunately it was his own words or words fed to him by unknown parties, that have created the monster we commonly call Ryan Dancy. Raille

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > There is no mock conversations. Really? Hrm. Then what's this? 'ME: "Regardless. I have no interest in debating collectability of a game."' This is prolly the shortest example of the little back and forth paraphrased quotes that you seem to be quite fond of and have no more constructive purpose other than put yourself in a negative light. But hey, if the only way you feel like you can get attention is if everyone hates you, then rock on. > Because you choose to ignore the points of interest are not my problem. Um, excuse me? Did you graduate from kindegarten? I made a point that VTES, as a collectable card game, has requirements in how it's sold in order to maximize profit for White Wolf. You responded by saying that VTEs isn't a collectable card game. However, when provided with empirical evidence that both WotC and WW marketed VTES as a collectable card game, you respond with this kind of crap. Aaron, grow the fuck up and be man enough to admit when you're wrong. > I'm not poking you in the eye. ??? I hereby banish you to bible study. You obviously have no clue about the meaning of the proverb I quoted. But since you might need the fast track, the proverb advises you to correct your major flaws before criticizing other people for minor ones. > I just think you are talking about nothing. I don't recall asking you what you think and while you continue to act like a childish little brat when someone raises a contrary opinion or fact, I sure as hell won't plan on asking your opinion in the future. > It doesn't help me understand why you like throwing away pieces of paper that you > bought to play with, that you are unable to use? What the hell are you talking about?!? I don't throw cards any VTES away unless they are damaged in some fashion. Extra cards go into the milk crate of cards to be given to needy players or used as proxies. I seem to recall that you have been the beneficiary of that same crate on more than a few occasions. Noal

Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:<3B5A4B6E...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>... > Really? Well, if you say it must be true!!! > > But before I get so hasty as to argue with the famed and esteemed Lemar > Johnson, allow me to read a box of cards produced by WotC. > > Now if you would bear with me for a second, I shall transcribe what I am > reading from the back of a V:TES starter box:, "Vampire: The Eternal > Struggle ^TM (formerly Jyhad ^TM) is an exciting trading card game." > > So we can all agree that V:TES is a Trading Card Game. But, if I > continue reading, I find at the very end, "Contains one rulebook and 76 > collectable game cards." The terms used contradict since, within the industry, the terms themselves are used casually and interchangeably. We do not use them casually, here, because they would make this thread even more ambiguous. The issue at hand was whether or not White Wolf markets VtES game components as collectible pieces, primarily, or whether the emphasis on was their use as game components. (And note that this was a minor issue indeed in my previous post; the essentials and significant points thereof were not referred to at all by the individual I reply to here.) I have not seen White Wolf cater specifically to collectors in any concise, meaningful way since their acquisition of VtES; on the contrary, their use of the rarity system to make unique cards and vampires higher in rarity would suggest an emphasis on maintaining high standards of playability in boosters purchased by customers. I have not seen significant on-line support from the parent company for VtES collection by collectors, yet I have found many official sources of aid for the game, including the presence of a permanent rules person on this list. While this does not make the game non-collectable, this suggests that the game is, in fact, a game that can be collected and not a set of components that can be, upon occasion, used as a game. > Holy shit, Batman! If WotC isn't marketing VTES as a Collectable Card > Game, why did they use the phrase, "collectable game cards," on the > product itself?!? > > In short, have a meal of humble pie with a side of crow. Next time you > make an arugment, please have enough respect for us all as to check your > facts, first. Next time you post, please have enough self-respect to spell-check your shoddy work. An "argument," indeed. I was not arrogant in my post; it seems you have done your best to paint me as such so you yourself could come off as arrogant. My advice: find something, outside of these postings, to take pride in. If your ego is too fragile to handle disagreement, may I suggest stamp collecting, as you will likely find less conflict there. Nor will you find that stamp collecting requires much in the way of proper grammar, etiquette, or respect for other human beings, which may well allow it to play to your strengths, rather than your weaknesses. And no, I was not arrogant in this post, either. I was disparaging. I do not think myself better than the person who responded, but I did find his attitude leaving much to be desired (though I am certain that he is, in fact, a decent human being of course). I specifically picked nits in what I found to be a rant by a person who was acting out in a verbally-abusive manner. I would much rather have my person attacked after I have transgressed. As the order has been upturned, I thought it best to rectify the situation by transgressing now. -- Lemar Johnson ************************************************************************* One would like to stroke and caress human beings, but one dares not do so, because they bite. -- Vladimir Lenin

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<4C7C56AB2E2681FE.71506271...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 19 Jul 2001 04:09:06 -0700, legbiter wrote: : > > >> Now where exactly does this differ from V:tES? > >VtES: You are evil > >Rage: You fight against evil > >Comprende? > > Having looked at Rage now, this is a fair point - the Garou are heroic > defenders of Gaia against the servants of the evil Wyrm - Pentex, the > Vampires etc. > Whew. A bit of digression here -- I apologize if I offend by the subject modification. Rage is not about a bunch of heroic werewolves. Werewolves are not heroes. They are monsters. They are not nice to people. They serve their own interests as callously as any corporate raider. This is seen clearly in the source material, but also in the card game as well. Make no mistake, the foe they were designed to face (via plot) is the Wyrm, which is almost completely evil. (I say almost completely as it has gone mad and its victims are not always of sound mind, but its direct emanations can be considered, in a cartoonish sense, to have no unredeeming features.) Nevertheless, the Garou are themselves responsible for the elevation of the Wyrm in the modern day. The Garou slaughtered humanity mercilessly in antiquity (so the story goes), impressing the Delirium upon humanity and encouraging them to cut themselves off from matters of the spirit, driving them to the Weaver. To make a long, complicated (and not a little contradictory) story short, they are responsible for the modern day problems -- they damaged the very heart of humanity with the Impergium. And what do they do now? Fight and kill each other as much as anyone else. They slaughter their own kind into nigh-extinction, exacerbating problems with their shrinking wildernesses. One entire tribe was slaughtered to a man due to Garou lust for territory. In the card game, you get most of your victory points (needed to win) from slaughtering your opponent's Garou. In fact, the default state of the game is that our Garou fight, and occasionally a Wyrm enemy appears, at which point we fight each other and it. Both L5R and Rage feature relatively amoral societies. L5R features an entire underclass used as slave labor for their betters and casual death of subordinates for the pleasure of the ruling elite -- just like any feudal background. Rage features a group of terrifying, sentient monsters with human drives. These are not nice people. Vampire presents us with a group of ancient vampires who manipulate other vampires. Though it's very likely that they or their pawns do bad things, there's nothing to suggest that what they do is anything near the scale of L5R. Jyhad is a very abstract game -- today's session could be about who gets control of Mexico or who gets control over this Rembrant painting I and Methuselah B over there have been arguing over for centuries. I'm not saying that vampires are good, but I am saying that trying to call one's role in the other card games out there "good" and the role one plays in VtES "bad" is an absurd thing. I must respectfully disagree with such a notion. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking. -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<77CFD05C6193E9A0.B318130F...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 22 Jul 2001 01:06:49 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Factually incorrect, or at least half the truth. In Classic rage the > >best expansion was the Wyrm, where you got to be the bad guys. And > >even in Wyrm-free games the werewolves spent most of their time > >fighting each other. IIRC their mission is to be warriors for Gaia and > >in particular the Wyld aspect of the Weaver/Wyrm/Wyld triad, no > >individual part of which is good or evil - they are just out of > >balance, and this impends Apocalypse. > > Let's let the game speak for itself: > > "Welcome to Rage, the collectible trading card game based on the > storytelling game Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Each Rage player controls > a pack of savage and heroic werewolves (called Garou). Garou packs > often unite to combat the evil force known as the Wyrm, but equally > often battle one another for the ultimate position of pack dominance. > A pack achieves victory by conquering the Wyrm, by overpowering rival > Garou, or performing heroic tasks." Note, again, that the vast majority of the time in the card game is spent not merely "battling one another for the ultimate position of pack dominance" but slaughtering each other for the win. This is not a matter of wolves struggling to be alpha. Losing Garou end up *dead*. The winners in the card game generally rule a kingdom of corpses. And the roleplaying game, which is the primary source for the card game, does nothing to suggest that the Garou are caring creatures. Hell, the Shadow Lords are second only in power to the decrepit Silver Fangs, and they are legendary for working with vampires. And the latter are usually put in the "unreedemably evil" department by Garou. Legbiter is right; despite the text you mentioned, the game itself is not about heroes fighting a morally wrong enemy. It is about social, political, and military power struggles. > It's more morally uplifting than Pokemon, IMO. Not that that's saying > much as Pokemon is about as moral as cock-fighting - you find exotic > creatures in the wild and train them to fight each other for your > gratification and glory. There is nothing morally uplifting about either. Poekemon is animal abuse. Rage features the destruction of property and loss of human life to further the goals of a few metahumans. Ah -- that sounds familiar. One could apply that statement to a certain game about the undead... > >Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red > >Talons like to eat people, for example. > > That's no random example - they are the Garou hard-liners. There are > nasty Pokemon too. The Garou are not neutral. They are self-interested. Some individuals do good things, some bad. However, all individuals have a berserk fury and a nigh-unstoppable physical form which means, just like with vampires, they usually end up murdering people in the course of their existence even if they're not "mean people." White Wolf claims that Werewolf and Vampire are games where you play monsters; this is accurate. Modern hobby games are *not* good places to develop ethical rigor and ethical comparisons between White Wolf products is a little silly, to say the least. They can be lots of fun, though. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** In charity there is no excess. -- Francis Bacon

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<4446FA01B58663C1.97500209...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] The first question has an ambiguous answer, the second does not. Players enjoyed playing Wyrm, though they found them woefully underpowered. Plus, a series of bad rulings neutered them in non-thematic ways (Black Spiral Dancers were cut off from Auspice Gifts, despite world background says on the issue.) The expansion wasn't much of a success, mostly because it was bereft with rules problems. Constantly. I have documents showing a set of three reversals on just one essential rules issue ("can Wyrm creatures be affected by negative Enemy effects"). Players had difficulty with the base rules and those were *still* being revised and, occasionally, arbitrarily changed. White Wolf seemed committed to making what Tweet wanted to be a very simple game become a morass of rules problems. (To which Tweet was the initial source, admittedly -- you could not play a clear game of Rage from the first set with the original rulebook, due to ambiguity.) The expansion sold cards and made a profit, to be sure, but it did not endear itself to its fan base, from what I understand -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** THE DALEKS ARE NOT REDUNDANT! REDUNDANT!

In message <3B5C84AE...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >I would be happy if Mr. Dancy had simply left things at that point. >Unfortunately it was his own words or words fed to him by unknown >parties, that have created the monster we commonly call Ryan Dancy. He is, as I recall, quite picky about his name being spelled correctly. (Ryan S. Dancey.) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<aiJWlh$cPQW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar > Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes > >Do explain Heroes of Rokugan, a very, very small set of cards sold in > >L5R. Singles from HoR sale ludicrously well. Many players found the > >set utterly abhorrent because of the price. Collectors -- *collectors* > >-- often broke the rules and created false accounts to buy more sets > >than they were technically allowed. The cost of HoR was around $80 -- > >for about 20 cards. WotC limited its own profit on the set by limiting > >the print run and accessibility to the set; it would have successfully > >sold the set if it had printed the set several times over. > > > >This is not a happy example of what sets do to a game, IMHO, but it is > >an example of sets making lots of money for the parent company without > >killing the game. > > This sort of thing, however, works to undermine one of Jyhad's founding > principles - that any given card should be usable in a deck up to the > maximum deck limit. In a game where you can only use 1 (in the case of > a number of games with Uniques with 1/deck limits) or 4 or 5, selling > limited run sets isn't such a problem. Jyhad internally handles such > issues very, very differently. > Out of interest (having played Lo5R once or twice, never really getting > into it, and finding it a bit like creating a table-cloth out of cards > at times), how many of that set were Uniques, Events or Experienced (he > said, fiddling with an old rulebook), such that only 1 could be used? > I'm guessing the proportion is fairly high, so I'd be interested to be > proved wrong. Everything in HoR was Unique, by necessity. It was a small set (20 cards) and was sold in a very, very limited print run. If it had featured many non-Unique cards, it would have been an utter insult to players. The vast majority of L5R players would not have a single copy of these cards, while others could have enough to fill decks with duplicates (up to three are legal in a deck). This decision, to only make Unique cards in the set, was a necessity that resulted from the poor decisions (IMHO) to make it an exclusive one -- a "reward" for members of the Imperial Assembly. A reward that costed $80. As I said, it wasn't the happiest example. But people did buy it completely out, and the secondary market benefited from it, and it did not adversely affect booster or starter sales in any way. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult. -- Charlotte Whitton

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<43772D9B4DAA5A85.CE745567...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 20 Jul 2001 20:39:51 -0700, Lemar Johnson wrote: > > >Still (to go beyond speaking of INWO or Rolling Thunder), I have seen > >no examples of the reprint of a card in any game -- especially when > >the reprint is in a different format (color or art changes, for > >example) -- having a detrimental effect on the singles market, even > >less the set sales itself. The value of the original card for > >collectors was in its rarity, not its playability. > > How about: > > Ting Ting in Shadowfist > The Drifter in Doomtown > Dreams of the Sphynx in VTES > > These were all highly prized rares which were subsequently reprinted > as fixed cards in starters. The Netherworld Ting Ting used to be a > $50 card. I doubt you'd get that much for it now, even though it has > different art. The values of these cards may well have changed due to the fortunes of their associated games. Shadowfist was only recently resurrected and Doomtown is out of print. Indeed, there are a number of variables unaccounted for in the use of these cards as examples. Players may simply change their minds about their relative value. Admittedly, showing that reprints cause a change in value for their previously-printed cognates is a difficult thing to show as it is a positive statement and not a negative one, but it is necessary to support it distinctly in order to prove that reprints harm the secondary market. Plus, one must address why this decrease in value of older cards doesn't universally happen. (Limited Edition Focus in L5R has not decreased in value despite the fact that Focus was reprinted in all the basic sets.) And then support must be given to show that the fortunes of the secondary market directly affect the finances of the parent company of the game in question. I do not believe such a line of argument is correct. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics. -- Fletcher Knebel

In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes >> Out of interest (having played Lo5R once or twice, never really getting >> into it, and finding it a bit like creating a table-cloth out of cards >> at times), how many of that set were Uniques, Events or Experienced (he >> said, fiddling with an old rulebook), such that only 1 could be used? >> I'm guessing the proportion is fairly high, so I'd be interested to be >> proved wrong. > >Everything in HoR was Unique, by necessity. Hmm... this makes me think that this sort of high-powered (appropriately costed, of course), action-packed sort of set is unlikely to work in the No Limits world of V:TES, as a result, whereas it could work happily in any number of other card games. (Of course, I note the points about being unhappy about excluding players, cost and so forth. I'm thinking merely more in terms of mechanics and game impact.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes >> >Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red >> >Talons like to eat people, for example. >> >> That's no random example - they are the Garou hard-liners. There are >> nasty Pokemon too. > >The Garou are not neutral. The term was more, from where I stood, being applied at Garou as a whole, rather than the individualistic stance you take. Because vampires have to drink blood, because vampires descend into the Beast and so on, they can be considered *as a whole group* evil, by some definitions.[0] The Garou, on the other hand, are less definably evil in that general overall sense. The point, however, was being made that it is difficult to define the Garou as morally good, rather than specifically making them neutral. The Gurahl war, the Get of Fenris and many other items provide sufficient taint to make it hard to paint the Garou, as a whole, in a good light. Obviously, individuals differ from the stereotype, but the stereotype is mostly what was being discussed. (IMO etc.) [0] It is one of those difficult situations where creatures doing what is natural to them is defined as evil. Tricky to handle. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Alternate methods is not limited to sets. I take it you are opposed to > sets. Is there any other method you could live with? For example, if we > were to remove the rare sheet, and replace it with a second commone sheet, > and just have boosters that contained 3 cards from common sheet 1; 3 cards > from common sheet 2; 3 cards from a vampire sheet; and 2 cards from an > uncommon sheet. There is a different breakdown of the 11 cards you are > paying for, without the huge gaps/amounts of useless paper. > How is this substantially different than what they are already doing. What is the useless paper in final nights? Specifically, what did they do wrong and which cards are useless paper. How would your method of random boosters substantially differentiate from the current distribution method. > > > 2. There is no increase in production. If white wolf packaged a full > sheet > > > in a box, or mixed up 10 sheets before then stuffed them into a box. > It's > > > not like they are making more or less cards. Just different schemes of > > > distribution. > > > > There might not be any increase in production. You are going to have > > a increase in production costs though. You must package the > > "different schemes of distribution" in a different manner. This costs > > money. The manufacturing alone would cause to have to change your > > manufacturing process to create the > > "different scheme of distribution". Change is bad for manufacturing. > > Change causes costs to increase. Cost eat profits. Profits pay > > workers. Workers > > do the work that makes the product. Do you see how changing the > > "distribution scheme" would increase costs so that they could afford > > less workers which would lower the quality of the end product, not to > > mention the quantity of end product that could be produced at a > > profit. > > As you pointed out, white wolf is making preconstructed decks. Unless they > did that on purpose to lose money, there should be no problem switching to > something similar to my example above. I am not sure that physical > manufacturing would have to change, just distribution. You say it would > cost a large amount of money to package things differently, because change > causes costs. When white wolf decides to make a new set, like bloodlines, > isn't that going to cost more? And in your expert opinion, would it cost > them any more to change from 1 card from a 'rare' sheet in a package to 2? > I believe you are correct, that there is no possible way to change > production now, but when the next change comes why not make it more > favorable? > The difference between a boxed set and a precon starter is about 80 to 100 cards. Also the purpose of a starter is distinctly different from a prepackaged set. A starter in put together to induce new players into a game. A prepackaged set is for collectors who can now say they have a whole set. Also, Players will more than likely buy more than one precon starter as opposed to a collector who will buy one set and then say," Now, I have one. I don't need to buy anymore." > > > > > 3. Okay. I believe you have provided valid points for why sets are not > a > > > good idea. None of them seem to disprove why they are a potentially > good > > > idea, but there are two sides to every topic. > > > > The single biggest hurdle that the Pro-Set group has to clear is "How > > does printing a set increase the overall demand for my product without > > signifigantly decreasing the demand for an identical product that I > > already manufacture?" > > I'm still looking toward the future on this one. If I were going to produce > sets, I probably wouldn't make random boosters..and avoid competition with > myself(bad as you point out) Although I do not think that if white wolf > were to now issue a completed boxed set of sabbat war, that it would hurt > their sales...uhm...of their sold out product. > Sabbat War is not sold out. Many distributors still have stock of it. You may not realize it but the distributors are WW customers directly, and we, the players, are there customers indirectly. You always look out for your direct customers first, because they pay the bills. If WW screws the distributor with a set release of Sabbat War and hang them with all the open stock of Sabbat War boosters, then the distributor gets upset and refuses to buy Bloodlines, which is what most of the players want not a repackaged Sabbat War set. > > > 4. The game wasn't broke after V:TES. > > > > It was broke. Distributors were going broke for buying it. Let's > > see, at one point in time you could buy boxes of Jyhad for $5.00. > > They cost the distributor $20.00. That is a loss of $15.00 on every > > box. That is going broke about as fast as you can. > > > > It isn't broke now. > > > > Then why do you want to change it? > > > > There was > > > nothing broken with random starter decks. > > > > LOL, that's a good one. have you ever just bought a Jyhad or VTES > > started and tried to play with it. You can't. It is incohesive. If > > you are lucky two vampires will be from the same clan. The random > > starters for Jyhad/VTES were awful. No one could start playing the > > game right out of the box. It was a bunch of cards that required > > diffent things that were in short supply. > > In the sense that you said 'if it isn't broke don't try to fix it' There is > nothing to suggest that you should be able to play a random starter out of > the box. There is nothing *broken* about having to construct a deck before > you play, as far as I can tell. Is it better to have a starter deck that > has some continuity, probably. But random starter decks are just like big > boosters. If the starters were so bad then what makes the boosters so good? > Then the name should be changed from random starter to super booster pack. You can not start to play VTES in any reasonable fashion if you buy one VTES starter. This discourages new players who become disillusioned and see this as as grand money making scheme and not a game. > > There was no need for the > > > preconstructed. > > > > Are you on crack? Okay I will stop with the flames. How do you get > > new players interested in the game? You construct a deck and you give > > it to them. The Starters should have already done that. They didn't. > > So now we have pre-cons. > > They were very necessary. > > Same as above. You said that if nothing is broken don't fix it. Necessary, > no. People could still learn to play, and make a deck with their cards. > Easier, nice, helpful, more fun...yes. My problem was that you said you > don't want to change anything because it's fine the way it is. I think > that, while its okay, it could be made better. 7 years ago they probably > would have though you were on crack for talking about preconstructed > starters. And I am with you in saying that I think they are a very valuable > resource. How many starters does a newbie have to buy before he can make a three discipline deck around a clan? 3, 4, 5, where do you stop? Now think, if there were noone around to teach you the game and you and a friend each bought one starter, then it would be pretty ridiculous to try to play them out of the box. Compare this with say Netrunner, which is an excellent straight out of the box game. > > > They are a nice addition. > > > > I think if nice was an abbreviation for necessary than I would agree > > with you. > > I don't disagree with you, you are right! > > > There are possibly other things > > > that would be helpful as well. Maybe we could figure them out if it > wasn't > > > for the: "Screw you" and "Screw you more" bantering of certain people on > > > this thread. Any good system needs to be shaken up every so often. If > > > there is nothing broken, then we need no new cards. No new sets. > Nothing. > > > No progress is made by sitting idle. > > > > This is a game, not social engineering. People should be allowed to > > fight. It is entertaining. > > I don't think fighting is entertaining. I don't like fighting. There is > nothing to be gained by fighting. Peace man! Fighting is competition at its most fundamental level. Crude, yes, but never the less entertaining. BTW, I in no means condone bullying, if that is what you are trying to get at. If you kick the shit out of a bully, well then I guess he got what he was asking for. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <d2f8d37b.01072...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >How many starters does a newbie have to buy before he can make a three >discipline deck around a clan? 3, 4, 5, where do you stop? Now >think, if there were noone around to teach you the game and you and a >friend each bought one starter, then it would be pretty ridiculous to >try to play them out of the box. Compare this with say Netrunner, >which is an excellent straight out of the box game. Actually, in terms of sheer silliness, playing with something right out of the box is kinda fun. Sealed deck, with an entirely sealed deck. Not competitive, not refined, but bizarre. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:3B5C9FF4...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com... > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > There is no mock conversations. > > Really? Hrm. Then what's this? > > 'ME: "Regardless. I have no interest in debating collectability of a > game."' > > This is prolly the shortest example of the little back and forth > paraphrased quotes that you seem to be quite fond of and have no more > constructive purpose other than put yourself in a negative light. But > hey, if the only way you feel like you can get attention is if everyone > hates you, then rock on. I don't want attention. I just wanted you to talk about what my origional reply was about. I responded to all 6 of your points. You responded to one of mine. There is nothing negative about trying to move on in a conversation. If you want to go to civil discussion, just head on back to my reply to you on 7/20/01. > I made a point that VTES, as a collectable card game, has requirements > in how it's sold in order to maximize profit for White Wolf. You > responded by saying that VTEs isn't a collectable card game. However, > when provided with empirical evidence that both WotC and WW marketed > VTES as a collectable card game, you respond with this kind of crap. > > Aaron, grow the fuck up and be man enough to admit when you're wrong. I think it's not a collectable game, in concept. Just because there are some links doesn't change my mind. Thats okay, I can have my own ideas just like you can have yours. We have both stated our opinions and our reasons. I'm find with leaving it at that, and possibly talking about other things. > > I'm not poking you in the eye. > > ??? > > I hereby banish you to bible study. You obviously have no clue about the > meaning of the proverb I quoted. But since you might need the fast > track, the proverb advises you to correct your major flaws before > criticizing other people for minor ones. Thats it! Fun's over. Bible study... I banish you to...uhm...somewhere bad... > > It doesn't help me understand why you like throwing away pieces of paper that you > > bought to play with, that you are unable to use? > > What the hell are you talking about?!? I don't throw cards any VTES away > unless they are damaged in some fashion. Extra cards go into the milk > crate of cards to be given to needy players or used as proxies. I seem > to recall that you have been the beneficiary of that same crate on more > than a few occasions. I know, I think that you shouldn't have to.. I can't imagine buying so many cards that I can give away decapitates!! You are a fine guy IRL. Somehow you get all riled up online.(and while you are thinking of something nasty to say, could you email me a copy of your mind rape deck? I'm trying a new twist on it)

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d2f8d37b.01072...@posting.google.com... > > Alternate methods is not limited to sets. I take it you are opposed to > > sets. Is there any other method you could live with? For example, if we > > were to remove the rare sheet, and replace it with a second commone sheet, > > and just have boosters that contained 3 cards from common sheet 1; 3 cards > > from common sheet 2; 3 cards from a vampire sheet; and 2 cards from an > > uncommon sheet. There is a different breakdown of the 11 cards you are > > paying for, without the huge gaps/amounts of useless paper. > > > How is this substantially different than what they are already doing. > What is the useless paper in final nights? Specifically, what did > they do wrong and which cards are useless paper. How would your method > of random boosters substantially differentiate from the current > distribution method. The useless paper I am refering to is not the cards themselves/what they do. My worthless paper is this(as a limited example, please keep that in mind): My personal collection of Chimerstry cards from Final Nights(no trading so far) Amria Common 19 Draba Common 19 Fata Amria Rare 3 Imposing Phantasm Rare 2 Mirror Image Common 20 Pseudo-Blindness Common 20 Reality Common 23 Red Herring Common 22 Sensory Overload Common 19 Shilmulo Deception Common 24 Sleight of Hand Rare 4 Path of Paradox, The Rare 2 (included to make things even) My paper problem is the same as why I think things could be different from now. So I get about 3 of any rare, and 20 of any common. With only a slight change in the rarity scheme things could be a little more equal. Notice that there are actually 2 sets of commons per rares. Thats 40 commons to 6 rares. Make it there cards from the rare sheet instead of one, and I'd average 28 commons to 18 rares. Not too bad( 9 path of paradox to 14 red herring) My excess 'paper' is anything really over ten or so cards. So I am getting stuck with a bunch of cards I can't use. Sure I probably wouldn't use 9 path of paradox either, but if I wanted to at least this way I would have the option. White wolf certainly wouldn't have lost any sales either. As it stands I bought all the final nights I will. With a rarity scheme as above, I would have bougth the same amount. I would just have more playable rares and less junk that will not see use.(none of this is including the actual cards themselves, just there is nothing I could do with 40 of any card, I'd just as soon trade those 10 in for 10 extra twising the knife) People that are buying cards just to collect sets(with no intention of playing) would probably have an easier time getting the cards they need, maybe white wolf would lose something there. Maybe players would buy more cards, because they were getting a better deal? Maybe more people would play because it wouldn't be seen as burning up your life savings on a single game!(always an amazing plus to luring in new players) Maybe decks would be more diversified as people would have more equal access to all the cards...resulting in improved gameplay? > The difference between a boxed set and a precon starter is about 80 to > 100 cards. Also the purpose of a starter is distinctly different from > a prepackaged set. A starter in put together to induce new players > into a game. A prepackaged set is for collectors who can now say they > have a whole set. Also, Players will more than likely buy more than > one precon starter as opposed to a collector who will buy one set and > then say," Now, I have one. I don't need to buy anymore." Not a personal thing, but why is it screw the collector? Seems like they are already buying cards with no intention of using them other then to look at. Making them buy alot of (possibly cool to use) commons/uncommons just for a few rares to complete a set seems kind of mean. Probably turns some collectors away, would you think? [ quoted text not captured ] I thought it was. I imagined that the white wolf catalog was correct as they are listed as both out of print and out of stock. http://secure.white-wolf.com/catalog/results.tpl?action=full&cart=3078777689 443613&--eqskudatarq=2550 But you are correct, until you pointed it out I paid little attention to the distributors. [ quoted text not captured ] What something is called...what it is...all the same to me. I guess it doesn't seem to fit the title "starter deck" as in, 'deck do start you off' Maybe it origionally was ment only to 'start you off' It is a big pack of cards, with alot of different stuff. It was the only place to get the rulebook also. Probably you were only supposed to buy one, and then boost your deck with the 'booster packs' And if you have never played VTES it would be kinda bad if you went out and got 2 preconstructed starters...say assamite and !Brujah. There would be alot of things you would miss out on. Random starters pretty much force you to look at a wider mix(not good for teaching, but good for trying out new mechanics) > > > There was no need for the > > > > preconstructed. > > > > > > Are you on crack? Okay I will stop with the flames. How do you get > > > new players interested in the game? You construct a deck and you give > > > it to them. The Starters should have already done that. They didn't. > > > So now we have pre-cons. > > > They were very necessary. > > > > Same as above. You said that if nothing is broken don't fix it. Necessary, > > no. People could still learn to play, and make a deck with their cards. > > Easier, nice, helpful, more fun...yes. My problem was that you said you > > don't want to change anything because it's fine the way it is. I think > > that, while its okay, it could be made better. 7 years ago they probably > > would have though you were on crack for talking about preconstructed > > starters. And I am with you in saying that I think they are a very valuable > > resource. > > How many starters does a newbie have to buy before he can make a three > discipline deck around a clan? 3, 4, 5, where do you stop? Now > think, if there were noone around to teach you the game and you and a > friend each bought one starter, then it would be pretty ridiculous to > try to play them out of the box. Compare this with say Netrunner, > which is an excellent straight out of the box game. That is what happened in my area, origionally, We got them...looked at them. And we were very VERY confused. Needless to say we each put our boxes away till someone else learned how to play, then taught us. I never played Netrunner, but I believe you.(althought I would ask what makes it so easy to play out of the box?) > Fighting is competition at its most fundamental level. Crude, yes, > but never the less entertaining. BTW, I in no means condone bullying, > if that is what you are trying to get at. If you kick the shit out of > a bully, well then I guess he got what he was asking for. I guess that's the way of the world. Aaron.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<4446FA01B58663C1.97500209...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 23 Jul 2001 06:21:54 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Alright, well here's some other examples: the Get of Fenris are > >alarmingly close to fascism [their tribal Glyph is actually a Fylfot]. > >The Shadow Lords are so close to being bad that one of their > >characters can be played in either Gaia or Wyrm packs. The Black > >Furlies hate men so much that they reject the masculine/penetrative > >cult of orthographical correctness. The Bone Gnawers consort with the > >Samedi. The Silver Fangs revel in incest and its associated genetic > >degeneracy. The Children of Gaia are classic eco-fascists. The Wendigo > >also like to eat people, especially if they are European colonists of > >North America. Mind you, they have some reason to be resentful, having > >been the victims of Get/Iron Rider/Silver Fang-inspired pogroms in the > >recent past. The Fianna are the IRA with hairy feet. > > You're laying it on a bit thick. Possibly. But i'm not making this stuff up, or at least not intentionally - i'm paraphrasing from the Werewolf: The Apocalypse/Wild West RPG books. And in general, Werewolfs become bad essentially for the reason adduced by Portia [?] in the Merchant of Venice: "O! It is wonderful to have a giant's strength - but it is Tyrranous to use it!" To me, the wilder elements are akin > to military outfits like the US Marines or the SAS that you might find > in wargames. They may be sons-of-bitches but they're _our_ > sons-of-bitches. i understand what you are saying and disagree with you completely. i think this line of reasoning is the starting point for all sorts of terrible moral collapses. It's one of the great things about the Monster: Bad Thing That's Going To Happen games that they explore the process of degeneration into evil in such an intelligent way, starting off with a minor quirk and ending up as just plain brown bad. Would that more policy makers played the games! Imperialism, most of us would agree, is a Bad Thing - but it doesn't necessarily start off bad. The British and more recently American Imperialists genuinely believe[d] that free trade and individualistic democracy are SUCH good things that it's incumbent upon powerful nations to MAKE other countries embrace these principles, whether they want to or not. From which it's an inevitable progress to Amritsar and My Lai. Of course, it helps if you're a bit of a tree-hugger > and dog-lover too but I am. Ahah, well that is probably our major point of difference. My werewolf name is Rends-the-Treehuggers, my auspice is Ahroun [really!] and my tribe is the Black Spiral Dancers. i used to be a treehugger in RL, but i got badly turned off by what i see as the Fascistic trends in Green thought. And before i was a treehugger i was a trotskyite, and i left THAT sect over what i saw as ignorant workerism over the Ulster Workers Strike. Nowadays i'm in the curious political position of being a socialist and an eco-politico whilst COMPLETELY unable to support any Green or left-of-labour party. > > >And, of course, Porygon, possibly the > >stupidestly overpowered card ever for any CCG [neutered in the Gym > >Leader expansion, though. Sigh]. > > Neutered how - errata, MRP or what? As you probably know, there are several different forms of the Pokemon. In the first few expansions there were TWO porygons, which did not have physical attacks but could change the resistances and weaknesses of Pokemon, both your own and your opponents. This made it absurdly easy to set up hyper-damaging strikes against your enemies and to give yourself immunities. What was really funny was that the second version of Porygon was even MORE powerful than the first, because the little kids couldn't figure out how to break it. When michael used to play in the Pokemon league and regularly abused Porygon's powers, the other kids nicknamed him The Destroyer. Eventually the third version of Porygon came out and it is completely useless, as far as i can see - same with the formerly-vampiric pokemon like Zubat and Golbat. Of course, you can still play with the old versions. > > >i'm not really understanding why you are pursuing this thread > > Partly because it's there. And partly because I've always thought > Dancey to be one of the more interesting and intelligent characters in > the games industry. His posts are always a pleasure to read, even if > I don't agree with them. I don't like to see him being slagged off > behind his back, especially on such flimsy grounds. He did a good job on Lo5R, for sure. And they DID bring out new cards for Netrunner and a new version of Rage. i think the NR Classic expansion was really very good, and i find it sad that so few people appreciate that very, VERY fine game. i liked new Rage, too, though i find it slower and less funny than old Rage - but it's a better balanced game. i do not think he was wise in his dealings with either the Vampire or Werewolf fanboyzngirlz, though, and i think that this unwisdom contributed to missed commercial opportunities in respect of both games. Anyway, i think with hindsight the REAL disaster would have been if he HAD issued expansions for VTES, because when he took over, Rage, Netrunner and VTES were all in the same boat. He DID issue cards for Rage and Netrunner and both those games are now pretty much completely dead. VTES escaped, and is now pretty much completely, erm, Undead. > > >When we said, look, VTES is > >a derivative of VtM, VtM is the second biggest-selling RPG, so it > >really OUGHT to be possible to get VTES into the number 2 slot of CCGs > >after Magic [which is kinda DnD-based so SHOULD be on top, because DnD > >is number 1 in RPGs], he came back with "Well, i think VTES is > >immoral". It's nice that you at least can see something good about > >Dancey - i hate to be negative about people, in general - but surely > >you must see that there's a problem with somebody who says "i'm > >canning this game for commercial reasons" and then, when those > >commercial reasons are questioned on logical grounds, changes his > >response to "alright, whatever the commercial facts of the matter i'm > >STILL going to can this game because i find it repugnant". > > You're still repeating the Big Lie. Dancey didn't say this. Well, sorry if i'm repeating a lie, but i really don't think i am. And further down this reply, you seem to be agreeing with my interpretation of his remarks. When > pressed later by European fans who said that there was a market for > the game there, he said that he'd arrange for another expansion if > WotC Europe would place a firm pre-order for the minimum profitable > quantity. If there was a market there, he was ready to satisfy it. > > >Now, i agree with you and Dancey that vampires ARE bad and that they > >are NOT admirable, but i think it's a stretch from there to say that > >VTES is immoral. > > I think his point was that having such games in your portfolio was bad > for the company's image and so bad for business (i.e. would hurt > sales). Here is the bit where you seem to be agreeing with the rest of us that Dancey DID find VTES repugnant. He made reference to incidents in VTES' past - not clear > whether this was the Jyhad name or something else. This image problem > was a black mark against the game, for sure, but he never flatly ruled > out more development because of it. Strictly speaking this is true - he put it "on hold". i say that means he canned it. > > Some folk suggested that a Hunter/Slayer expansion would be a good way > of addressing this but he didn't go for it - said that he expected > that existing fans would be hostile. It's a shame he didn't give this > a try as I would probably have liked it. i would like to see this, too, and so would Sarah i'm sure. i know it sounds funny but we really, REALLY don't like vampires. Was the Wyrm expansion for > Rage a success? Did players like playing the opposition? Opinions differ about that. Most of the Rage players i know LOVED it but as another poster remarks further down this was not a universal feeling. Not controversial is that the Wyrm had the best foil in Count Vladimir Rustovich and the worst foil in Churjoroc's tusk. > > Andrew

<snip> > - their card games blew chunks as, to coin a term, SCGs (strategic card > games) > - they seemed to have shuffled all their card games off (Rage had just > been sold on to FRPG, Changeling was being (rightfully) ignored > </troll> - Legbiter will be along in a second to defend it ;-) ) "SIR! STEP AWAY FROM THE OLD WW TCGS AND KEEP YOUR HANDS WHERE WE CAN SEE THEM! BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM! SIR!" i'm not blind to the faults of old rage and Changeling, but i really liked, and like, those games. Are they as good as VTES? Obviously not, but there are nice ideas and artwork and funny little jokes in them which make them, in some ways, a better reflection of the WoD than VTES is. <snip>

On 23 Jul 2001 16:21:01 -0700, Lemar Johnson wrote: >Ih L5R and Rage feature relatively amoral societies. L5R features an >entire underclass used as slave labor for their betters and casual >death of subordinates for the pleasure of the ruling elite -- just >like any feudal background. I'm reminded of the sophisticated peasant who starts haranguing King Arthur about his political system in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's funny because it's so out of place. What's equally incongruous is the way that players import their own morality into VTES. See the current furore about the player who actually threatened another. Or the way that many players insist that keeping deals in an honourable manner is vital. The thing I liked most about L5R were the little role-playing touches - the way you lost honour if you backed up, "the table is yours", etc. These tried to get you to play the game with a Japanese mind-set and it's a shame that most players couldn't handle it. Anyway, what this all goes to show is that Dancey was not some unthinking puritan on a moral crusade. Did the remake of Rage change its moral character in any way? Of his games, I know Doomtown best and this contains a good mix of black hats, white hats and grey hats like most westerns. There's plenty of immorality in there - one faction even personifies the seven deadly sins. So what? >Vampire presents us with a group of ancient vampires who manipulate >other vampires. Though it's very likely that they or their pawns do >bad things, there's nothing to suggest that what they do is anything >near the scale of L5R. Jyhad is a very abstract game -- today's >session could be about who gets control of Mexico or who gets control >over this Rembrant painting I and Methuselah B over there have been >arguing over for centuries. I'm not saying that vampires are good, but >I am saying that trying to call one's role in the other card games out >there "good" and the role one plays in VtES "bad" is an absurd thing. >I must respectfully disagree with such a notion. The relationship between players in Jyhad is one of "predator" and "prey". The tone of the game is unremittingly dark and the gothic/punk fin-de-siecle theme is pushed hard. It's not possible to win the game in any other way than being nasty to your neighbours. You can't take pride in the success of your clan because you don't really have one - the minions are just unwitting puppets of an anonymous Methusaleh. Dancey saw these things as bad but they were not the reason for declining to produce a new expansion: >I reiterate again: VtES is not in active development because sales were >insufficient to justify continued efforts for the brand, not due to my moral >qualms. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<1286D6A044B32CF9.FDAF2257...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 23 Jul 2001 06:21:54 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >i'm not really understanding why you are pursuing this thread, to be > >honest. Dancey thought VTES was unsaveable. We thought he was wrong, > >and events have proved that we were right. When we said, look, VTES is > >a derivative of VtM, VtM is the second biggest-selling RPG, so it > >really OUGHT to be possible to get VTES into the number 2 slot of CCGs > >after Magic [which is kinda DnD-based so SHOULD be on top, because DnD > >is number 1 in RPGs], he came back with "Well, i think VTES is > >immoral". > > From memory, his actual response was that VtM had saturated its market > of goth vampire-wannabees and the market wouldn't be there again until > another generation grew up. Gee, they come on quickly those Goth-spawn then. What are we, two years into VtM third edition? He also pointed out that a CCG's appeal > was to the anal, geeky type who was into complex game mechanics, rules > and collecting. The folk who liked VtM were into role-playing, > dressing up and free-form, simplified gaming. There was therefore a > poor overlap between the two. It's a set thing, with overlaps. The set of VTES fans is not contained within the set of VtM fans, but they do overlap, more than you might think from this NG. > > I see little love of the RPG from fans of the VTES CCG here. Hmmm, we must be reading different versions of the NG. It's true that there are several of us who dislike vampires and despise attempts to map the RPG onto the CCG, but we are an articulate [and in my case, inconsistent] minority, IME. For the record, i think the RPG is a fine piece of work in respect of background and stuff. i'm less keen on the mechanics, and not at all keen on vampires as such. It seems > that he was quite correct. i know this is none of my business but are you, by any chance, in love with Ryan? > > Andrew

James Coupe wrote: > He is, as I recall, quite picky about his name being spelled correctly. > (Ryan S. Dancey.) > Sorry. I'm usually better at names than that. Dancey, Dancey, Dancey. There. Now I'm getting the hang of it! Raille

Tammy Coxen <tam...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3B5C4A3C...@mediaone.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] So i understand, but i don't play Magic at tourney level for lots of reasons, including the fact that i'm not a very good player, but really principally because i never play ANYTHING for money. i think cash prizes ruin any game into which they insinuate themselves. The only game i play to tourney level these days is VTES, where the biggest prize is usually a T-shirt.

On 24 Jul 2001 02:17:51 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Imperialism, most of us >would agree, is a Bad Thing - but it doesn't necessarily start off >bad. The British and more recently American Imperialists genuinely >believe[d] that free trade and individualistic democracy are SUCH good >things that it's incumbent upon powerful nations to MAKE other >countries embrace these principles, whether they want to or not. From >which it's an inevitable progress to Amritsar and My Lai. Perfect is the enemy of good. Great Britain and its former colony, the USA, have made the world what it is today and all other countries can't help but ape their successful culture (and language). The only serious ideological opposition now comes from Red China - a gerontocracy of crabby old men on the make - much like VTES's Methusalehs. But this is all going to change as science transforms humanity. The future will not resemble the past. >Anyway, i think with hindsight the REAL disaster would >have been if he HAD issued expansions for VTES, because when he took >over, Rage, Netrunner and VTES were all in the same boat. He DID issue >cards for Rage and Netrunner and both those games are now pretty much >completely dead. VTES escaped, and is now pretty much completely, erm, >Undead. Rage and Netrunner stayed dead in spite of what he did for them, not because of it. In one case he revamped the game, in the other he just produced more of the same. Neither was enough to revive them. If he'd tackled VTES, I expect he'd have stayed away from a revamp - he thought the game system was good. He didn't even want to introduce radical new elements like Hunters and so that only leaves more of the same. The result would therefore have been similar to what has been done by WW. I'd expect the production values to have been better though. And there would probably have been more of a storyline. >Here is the bit where you seem to be agreeing with the rest of us that >Dancey DID find VTES repugnant. He found the game's backstory repugnant while he liked its mechanics. >Strictly speaking this is true - he put it "on hold". i say that means >he canned it. It was already on hold. He didn't try to change this because he felt the market wouldn't support it. His requirement for viability was "In order to support a given TCG, that game must be able to sell at least 18 million cards annually." Has WW reached this level? Andrew

On 24 Jul 2001 02:35:33 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i know this is none of my business but are you, by any chance, in love >with Ryan? I don't think I've met him. I liked what he did with Doomtown and thought that Rolling Thunder was a neat idea but that's about it. Andrew

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<wfrMKxGS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3B5C15FB...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >Although if he left the game business entirely and became a postal > >worker, I would not expect my mail service to improve. > > Indeed. > > The D&D 3rd is kinda nice, but there are a number of holes in it. The > biggest of which is the fact that you can now slice through wizards at > close range at twice the speed you ever could. Which is bad, mmmkay? > That, and the new turning rules just plain suck. > > > (The attack of opportunity rules. If you go toe-to-toe with a wizard, > you get your normal attack(s) but his spell-casting provokes an attack > of opportunity and that's his weapon, so he *needs* to be able to spell- > cast. I've been toying with making the attack of opportunity a normal > attack (in that you roll attack, roll damage etc.) but *only* using the > damage for concentration rolls, and not applying it to the character. > The concentration roll still works exactly the same, but the wizard > keeps his hit-points.) i keep wishing that DnD Nth edition will address what i see as the biggest hole in it, namely the way the more powerful undead drain your EXPERIENCE LEVELS. i just find this so ridiculous in principle, so unworkable in practise and so completely unsupportable by reference to the Undead Mythos that it makes me ILL when i think about it. 3rd edition i at first thought HAD addressed this, but then i read the monster manual carefully and discovered it wasn't so. My vampires and wraiths in games i run do not, ever, drain experience levels.

<snip> > > >Now, i agree with you and Dancey that vampires ARE bad and that they > >are NOT admirable, but i think it's a stretch from there to say that > >VTES is immoral. > > I think his point was that having such games in your portfolio was bad > for the company's image and so bad for business (i.e. would hurt > sales). He made reference to incidents in VTES' past - not clear > whether this was the Jyhad name or something else. Maybe something to do with this: http://users.aol.com/LirielMc/private/florida.htm Not documented on this site and quite possibly not true [i got the information from that Fine Organ the Sunday Times] is the assertion that this crew of sad nutcases started off as an LARP Gangrel-antitribu sect, which is why i have been keeping tabs on the story. <snip>

> Admittedly, > showing that reprints cause a change in value for their > previously-printed cognates is a difficult thing to show as it is a > positive statement and not a negative one, but it is necessary to > support it distinctly in order to prove that reprints harm the > secondary market. Plus, one must address why this decrease in value of > older cards doesn't universally happen. (Limited Edition Focus in L5R > has not decreased in value despite the fact that Focus was reprinted > in all the basic sets.) Note that this rare card was not only reprinted in all the basic sets, but also included **twice** in a precon starter (and this game works under 3CL !). But it didn't change the value of the card much. Pierre

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > [Ryan S. Dancey's] requirement for viability was "In > order to support a given TCG, that game must be able to sell at least > 18 million cards annually." Has WW reached this level? WW reached the viability level with V:TES with the first half of the Sabbat War release. I don't think that RSD's requirement holds true for all companies. Maybe WotC's overhead is greater, so they need more volume to attain "viability". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > > Perfect is the enemy of good. Great Britain and its former colony, > the USA, have made the world what it is today and all other countries > can't help but ape their successful culture (and language). The only > serious ideological opposition now comes from Red China - a > gerontocracy of crabby old men on the make - much like VTES's > Methusalehs. But this is all going to change as science transforms > humanity. The future will not resemble the past. I realize this is just a trolling attempt, but I think you might want to stick to *game-related* trolls.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<91C3251B3233D50A.AD3B8610...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 24 Jul 2001 02:17:51 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Imperialism, most of us > >would agree, is a Bad Thing - but it doesn't necessarily start off > >bad. The British and more recently American Imperialists genuinely > >believe[d] that free trade and individualistic democracy are SUCH good > >things that it's incumbent upon powerful nations to MAKE other > >countries embrace these principles, whether they want to or not. From > >which it's an inevitable progress to Amritsar and My Lai. > > Perfect is the enemy of good. Great Britain and its former colony, > the USA, have made the world what it is today and all other countries > can't help but ape their successful culture (and language). The only > serious ideological opposition now comes from Red China - a > gerontocracy of crabby old men on the make - much like VTES's > Methusalehs. i'ld be tempted to rate Fundamentalist Islam as a more serious ideological opposition in terms of ideas, if not of raw political power. And some of the most interesting political ideas around from my point of view are the Communitarian concepts which emerge from Central and South African local politics [but you can get them in Europe from various Green parties, along with a load of emotive anti-scientism which i find both repugnant and counter-productive]. But this is all going to change as science transforms > humanity. The future will not resemble the past. Hehehe ... i hope you are right. But as a professional gene-cloner i'm amazed at the extent of anti-scientism amongst even bright people who, for example, play complicated card-games for fun. Maybe this is mainly a UK thing though, since as Lord Longford notes hereabouts EVERYBODY is a small-c conservative. > > >Anyway, i think with hindsight the REAL disaster would > >have been if he HAD issued expansions for VTES, because when he took > >over, Rage, Netrunner and VTES were all in the same boat. He DID issue > >cards for Rage and Netrunner and both those games are now pretty much > >completely dead. VTES escaped, and is now pretty much completely, erm, > >Undead. > > Rage and Netrunner stayed dead in spite of what he did for them, not > because of it. In one case he revamped the game, in the other he just > produced more of the same. Neither was enough to revive them. If > he'd tackled VTES, I expect he'd have stayed away from a revamp - he > thought the game system was good. He didn't even want to introduce > radical new elements like Hunters and so that only leaves more of the > same. The result would therefore have been similar to what has been > done by WW. I'd expect the production values to have been better > though. And there would probably have been more of a storyline. i certainly think you are right about Netrunner - it just doesn't and didn't have the enthusiastic fan-base that the WoD games have, and probably there was nothing that ANYBODY could have done to make that game into a really big hit commercially. Critically, of course, nobody would seriously challenge the judgement that this is the best sealed-deck two-player CCG there has ever been, but IMO the problem is the background - people don't want to pretend to be computer nerds and cyber suits, perhaps because a lot of us already ARE nerds and suits, often simultaneously. i actually tried to rejig the NR mechanic to be more DnD-ish, so the Runner was the adventurer and the Corporation was the Dungeon-builder sorta thing. All just on 3x5 index cards, but it was good fun, and i wrote to Jennifer Clarke Wilkes at WoTC about the project, basically to ask if they might consider doing the same thing professionally. She replied that this had already been discussed, and rejected on the grounds of not wanting to queer Magic's pitch. Rage is a different matter. i don't think the rules rewrite per se was the problem. i think doing it in such a way that all the old cards became unusable WAS the problem. IMO, what was wrong with old rage was that the timing was a terrible mess, cards kept drifting out of your deck [because you used them to mark damage or long-lasting effects on other minions/cards], and some of the cards were ridiculously over-powered [Spirit Alias, anyone?]. Local playgroups had solved these problems by using ad hoc timing rules, sleeves to keep track of your own damage cards and card limits or bans for the real stinkers. All of this experience was ignored during Rage II development, as far as i can tell, and this caused a great deal of unnecessary resentment of and resistance to the new product. As for what FRPG MIGHT have done with VTES we will never know. i think you are right that there would have been a storyline, but more of one? i am quite happy with the story developments in SW and FN, basically linking the game to the clan novels. > > >Here is the bit where you seem to be agreeing with the rest of us that > >Dancey DID find VTES repugnant. > > He found the game's backstory repugnant while he liked its mechanics. Right, so we agree. Phew. > > >Strictly speaking this is true - he put it "on hold". i say that means > >he canned it. > > It was already on hold. He didn't try to change this because he felt > the market wouldn't support it. Indeed, and as subsequent events have shown, he was mistaken in this judgement. His requirement for viability was "In > order to support a given TCG, that game must be able to sell at least > 18 million cards annually." Has WW reached this level? Viability? Apparently so. Will this last in the medium-to-long term? Guess we'll be finding out together. Do you need to sell 18 million cards annually? No, you need to sell enough cards annually to pay your production costs and to give your employees and yourself enough money to buy Loose Cars and Fast [Wo]men. If you make the cards in countries where [wo]men and cars are cheap and you sell them in countries where they are dear, then the number you need to print and sell is less than if the situation is reversed. > > Andrew

<snip> > > What's equally incongruous is the way that players import their own > morality into VTES. See the current furore about the player who > actually threatened another. That IS interesting, isn't it? Like football, VTES is not a matter of life and death - it's more important than that. Or the way that many players insist that > keeping deals in an honourable manner is vital. For most of us, the keeping deals thing is an extension of the cooperate/defect idea in Prisoner's dilemma, sometimes with the extra sauce of the theory behind the application of Game Theory to evolutionary biology. Not, in short, anything to do with abstract concepts of honour/morality - rather, to do with maximising your VP-obtaining opportunities. The thing I liked > most about L5R were the little role-playing touches - the way you lost > honour if you backed up, "the table is yours", etc. These tried to > get you to play the game with a Japanese mind-set and it's a shame > that most players couldn't handle it. i think you are missing the RPG element in VTES, which DOES exist but is not closely related to VtM role-playing. In VTES your deck IS your character and like the character in more conventional RPGs it is an extension of the real you, or of an aspect of the real you. > > Anyway, what this all goes to show is that Dancey was not some > unthinking puritan on a moral crusade. Did the remake of Rage change > its moral character in any way? Of his games, I know Doomtown best > and this contains a good mix of black hats, white hats and grey hats > like most westerns. There's plenty of immorality in there - one > faction even personifies the seven deadly sins. So what? > > >Vampire presents us with a group of ancient vampires who manipulate > >other vampires. Though it's very likely that they or their pawns do > >bad things, there's nothing to suggest that what they do is anything > >near the scale of L5R. Jyhad is a very abstract game -- today's > >session could be about who gets control of Mexico or who gets control > >over this Rembrant painting I and Methuselah B over there have been > >arguing over for centuries. I'm not saying that vampires are good, but > >I am saying that trying to call one's role in the other card games out > >there "good" and the role one plays in VtES "bad" is an absurd thing. > >I must respectfully disagree with such a notion. > > The relationship between players in Jyhad is one of "predator" and > "prey". The tone of the game is unremittingly dark and the > gothic/punk fin-de-siecle theme is pushed hard. It's not possible to > win the game in any other way than being nasty to your neighbours. You can Golconda their vampires so that they are released from the bondage of the Beast. You can Empower the Ancillae so that they escape from the shackles of the Elders. You can let vampires taste the delights of True Love with Bonding, Seduction and Blood Bond. Except in tournament play, you can return your own vampires to innocence. You can defeat opponents peacefully with your razor-sharp wits [Riposte] or Beauty [Aching Beauty, majesty, charisma]. Your vampires can Atone, show Mercy for the Weak, and rediscover their humanity [Memories of Mortality, Humanitas]. You can Redeem their Lost Souls. You can sponsor literature and the arts [Elder Library, Arcane Library, Secret library of Alexandria, Art museum, High Museum of Art, Atlanta]. i'm sure there are lots of other nice things you can do which i have forgotten. But you can't Rend someone's entrails in VTES nor can you Cleave them in Twain [though you can in classic rage]. > You can't take pride in the success of your clan because you don't > really have one - the minions are just unwitting puppets of an > anonymous Methusaleh. Agreed, but a lot of people DO take pride in 'their' clan, nonetheless. <snip>

Okay, now that all the petty crap about whether VTES is a CCG or not is settled (I hope) we can get on to the meat of the problem. "The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > My worthless paper is this(as a limited example, please keep that in mind): > My personal collection of Chimerstry cards from Final Nights(no trading so > far) > Amria Common 19 > Draba Common 19 > Fata Amria Rare 3 > Imposing Phantasm Rare 2 > Mirror Image Common 20 > Pseudo-Blindness Common 20 > Reality Common 23 > Red Herring Common 22 > Sensory Overload Common 19 > Shilmulo Deception Common 24 > Sleight of Hand Rare 4 > Path of Paradox, The Rare 2 (included to make things even) There's something I noticed when looking at this list and then looking at the full list on the White Wolf web page. There are no "uncommon" library cards. I'm uncertain whether this is a problem. Personally, I don't have a problem with rare (and R1, formerly chase) cards as it admittedly gives me a thrill when I get a hard to find card that I've been trying to get multiples of. It's also a minor frustration to be unable to build a deck concept because I don't have enough of a given card, but it's the same thrill/frustration that I get from video games...and I enjoy those, too. However, the more I think about making some of the currently common cards into "uncommon," I realize that they would compensate by making common cards even more common, instead of making the rare cards less rare. If they did both, esp. with the more utilitarian cards, you'd probably have a better mix. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Regards, Noal

Why I like the Ultra-rares... Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and why? Matt

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:EB51EA4AE8639D27.F3B1BC2F...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] In the L5R community Rolling Thunder is widely considered a disaster it resulted in players feeling coerced into buying too much product too fast. The Hidden Emperor and Scorpion Clan Coup expansions ( the ones that did Rolling Thunder ) are still widely available and are considered to be low quality sets probably because of the need to fill out 6 sets (HE) and 3 sets (SCC) instead of 1 each, players wound up with far too many low quality commons which IMHO were there only to fill out the expansion. WoTC/FRPG obviously agreed with me because they changed the final 3 HE sets into 1 set called Dark Journey Home which blew off the shelves and is one of the more highly prized sets in L5R. Ken Shaw

[ quoted text not captured ] Odd, that; I think it's the single most accurate, easiest-to-agree-with statement D*v*ds*n's said on the newsgroup EVER. gomi -- There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with morons. -- M. Lorton

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<xm6cUtDV...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar > Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes > > > >Everything in HoR was Unique, by necessity. > > Hmm... this makes me think that this sort of high-powered (appropriately > costed, of course), action-packed sort of set is unlikely to work in the > No Limits world of V:TES, as a result, whereas it could work happily in > any number of other card games. It is ironic that you should say this. As a matter of fact, the cards in HoR were actually very weak! Most of them were vastly overcosted powerhouses. Something you must understand about L5R if you don't play it is that permanents aren't too permanent -- if you spend all your resources on a monster, rest assured that his time is short. Of course, this happens in Jyhad to a lesser degree. But L5R is particularly brutal. But I digress. In any event, only two or three of those cards were truly flexible or strong, and one of the best of those was faction specific (Naga -- who'd of thought they'd get the most efficient Personality in the set?). The one card that was really, truly strong -- Judgement -- can only be used in a very narrow deck archetype. (Dishonor Duelling.) And THAT card should have been availible in boosters because of its important place in the story. Like I said, not a happy set. :-) Again, if the cards in HoR had been extremely strong, players would have become very, very mad. "Let's see, you get three copies of a non-Unique game-breaker from a set I didn't know existed that costs $80 minimum and use them against me in tourney..."' As to your point, yes, if Jyhad had sets they would need to be vanilla and basic to have a good effect. Lots of cards you'd build a deck around, but no overpowered obscenities. Much like how starters are done now, to branch off towards another contention mentioned on this thread. > (Of course, I note the points about being unhappy about excluding > players, cost and so forth. I'm thinking merely more in terms of > mechanics and game impact.) Point taken. The newness of the card game phenomenon for hobby games doesn't give us all a wealth of examples to debate from, so I expect all our analogies will leave much to be desired. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking. -- Lyndon Baines Johnson

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<42qeQBDU...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <5219faff.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar > Johnson <vay...@hotmail.com> writes > >> >Werewolves are morally neutral, to put it at it kindest. The Red > >> >Talons like to eat people, for example. > >> > >> That's no random example - they are the Garou hard-liners. There are > >> nasty Pokemon too. > > > >The Garou are not neutral. > > The term was more, from where I stood, being applied at Garou as a > whole, rather than the individualistic stance you take. <snip> Ah. Point taken. Still, to take my contentions up a level, I would point out that, as mentioned above, some of the tribes will not fall under the "neutral" category. The radical femininsm leading into man-hating of the Black Furies is certainly antisocial, but could still be considered "neutral" ethically as they do not persecute males as much as reject them. The Red Talons, in celebration of winter solstice, grab the first few humans they find randomly, disembowel them, and use their entrails to decorate the forest. This is out of the text of a supplement. This is more than enough to condemn them as "evil," so I am willing to apply the label to entire tribes, but I do see the difficulty in applying it to the race in general, now. (Ironically, the general Garou code of conduct heartily condemns everything the Red Talons do to humanity, but a law is only as good as its enforcement, and Garou laws, at this point, are mild suggestions. Except for the one about the alpha getting what he deserves. Strangely enough, that law has some teeth.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:52:20 +0000 (UTC), go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >In article <9jjmv...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >> >>"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote >>> >>> Perfect is the enemy of good. Great Britain and its former colony, >>> the USA, have made the world what it is today and all other countries >>> can't help but ape their successful culture (and language). The only >>> serious ideological opposition now comes from Red China - a >>> gerontocracy of crabby old men on the make - much like VTES's >>> Methusalehs. But this is all going to change as science transforms >>> humanity. The future will not resemble the past. > >>I realize this is just a trolling attempt, but I think you might want to >>stick to *game-related* trolls. > >Odd, that; I think it's the single most accurate, easiest-to-agree-with >statement D*v*ds*n's said on the newsgroup EVER. It's possible that it's a political troll, but it's also got one characteristic that trolls don't usually have; it's basically accurate. English is fast becoming the near-universal "common language"; other languages are not dying out, but look at the EuroVTES tourneys. English is their meeting point. The description of China is also accurate, and while I agree with another poster that you can't forget the Islamic viewpoint, the fact that things are going to change abruptly over the course of the next 20 years can't be denied. Science -is- changing humanity; look at the difference between 1990 and today. -- Derek [THIS SPACE FOR RENT]

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<4446FA01B58663C1.97500209...@lp.airnews.net>... > > On 23 Jul 2001 06:21:54 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > > > >Alright, well here's some other examples: the Get of Fenris are > > >alarmingly close to fascism [their tribal Glyph is actually a Fylfot]...<snip lots of bad things>... The Fianna are the IRA with hairy feet. > > > > You're laying it on a bit thick. Oh, he's not. The World of Darkness games are not about going abroud and facing evil in some hellhole at the edge of the Earth. The WoD games are about going down to the convenience store to get some cough drops and finding EVIL, there, in the aisle, behind the counter, and in the foundations of the building itself. Then you go home -- more evil! To speak more clearly: every faction -- *every* faction -- in the WoD does bad things. (Except the Salubri. But if you don't know what Salout is responsible for, I won't tell you...) Legbiter just scratches the surface here. Think about it this way: without metahuman abilities, what are political organizations in the Real World responsible for historically and in the present day. In the U.S., the Democrats were considered, for the latter half of the century, to be the "party of the people" <snickering removed>. But guess which party, Democrats or Republicans, was frothingly pro-slavery in the 1800s? And the Republicans of yesteryear weren't anti-slavery because they read their Bibles closely and realized the evils of placing men in bondage, but they feared for jobs for poorer whites (slave labor being, in essesnce, free). And that's a century of history off. White Wolf critters hang around for milennia. And, in the present day, they still do bad stuff. A WoD character with a good heart will spend most of his time slapping down the peers of his faction -- an Order of Hermes mage of good intentions will revitalize the selfish and hidebound practices of his order, a Toreador of fine repute will police his own clan for excess, and a Shadow Lord on the straight and narrow will infight with the best of 'em -- but if he finds a tribe-brother who has a single strand of fur out of place he'll take him down. > Ahah, well that is probably our major point of difference. My werewolf > name is Rends-the-Treehuggers, my auspice is Ahroun [really!] and my > tribe is the Black Spiral Dancers. i used to be a treehugger in RL, > but i got badly turned off by what i see as the Fascistic trends in > Green thought. And before i was a treehugger i was a trotskyite, and i > left THAT sect over what i saw as ignorant workerism over the Ulster > Workers Strike. Nowadays i'm in the curious political position of > being a socialist and an eco-politico whilst COMPLETELY unable to > support any Green or left-of-labour party. The natural result of thought-out political convictions will eventually be the rejection of all large political parties that one does not have firm influence in. This is because large parties do not exist to serve oneself or one's interest first, but to perpetuate themselves. When given options between perpetuating themselves and bending themselves more closely to the will of the people of a nation, they must choose the former. I wouldn't be surprised if the next wave of voting practices in western natures features people voting completly based on the candidate, disregarding the party supporting the candidate as a secondary factor at best. And with that, we move way the hell off topic. Getting back... > He did a good job on Lo5R, for sure. Not all L5R players share this opinion. It's a relative thing and a long story, so we'll leave it at that. >And they DID bring out new cards > for Netrunner and a new version of Rage. i think the NR Classic > expansion was really very good, and i find it sad that so few people > appreciate that very, VERY fine game. I didn't know there was another NetRunner expansion. Or maybe I did and I'm confusing it -- there was only one expansion, yes? > > I think his point was that having such games in your portfolio was bad > > for the company's image and so bad for business (i.e. would hurt > > sales). > > Here is the bit where you seem to be agreeing with the rest of us that > Dancey DID find VTES repugnant. This is odd, too -- whilst there have been groups angry about Magic because it has sorcerous connotations, Jyhad never had any criticism. (I never tire of this irony: parent groups will leap on a game or hobby that seems to incidentally resemble an ancient religious prohibition, but they will ignore those pasttimes which feature violence as a means of achieving goals, despite most modern faith's condemnations of such. Poekemon's cockfighting was embraced by parents but Magic gets slammed for spellcasting.) Dancey's paranoia about Jyhad's image reflection seems irrational, at best. > > > > Some folk suggested that a Hunter/Slayer expansion would be a good way > > of addressing this but he didn't go for it - said that he expected > > that existing fans would be hostile. It's a shame he didn't give this > > a try as I would probably have liked it. > > i would like to see this, too, and so would Sarah i'm sure. i know it > sounds funny but we really, REALLY don't like vampires. What's to like? They're immortal monsters who need to be destroyed for the sake of humanity. Some of the clans are neat, though, in concept. Hunter, on the other hand, sucked, and sucked bigtime. I abhor it. It completly contradicted the only cool thing about fighting vampires: a mortal had to be constantly on his toes because his foes are holding most of the cards. Instead, Hunter first made these people metahumans, in complete defiance to established theme and common sense, then categorized them in typical, deplorable White Wolf fashion. Everything they touch must have clans. Hunter is a piece of crap. If humans are to have a bigger role in Jyhad, especially as opposition to Kindred activities, the designers would be well advised to seek inspiration from other sources than their parent company. > Was the Wyrm expansion for > > Rage a success? Did players like playing the opposition? > > Opinions differ about that. Most of the Rage players i know LOVED it > but as another poster remarks further down this was not a universal > feeling. Not controversial is that the Wyrm had the best foil in Count > Vladimir Rustovich and the worst foil in Churjoroc's tusk. Not controversial? Then why did you bring it up? Did you mean that it was not _un_controversial? > feeling. Not controversial is that the Wyrm had the best foil in Count > Vladimir Rustovich and the worst foil in Churjoroc's tusk. Oh, how I loved Churjoc's Tusk! It represented almost everything that was wrong with Rage! For those not in the know: The Tusk is an ultra-rare foil card. It allows you to kill off the powerful Black Spiral Dancer character that holds it (it has a high Gnosis requirement, meaning the holder is probably significant). So you're down a peep -- a good one. But wait, there's more. You can go through your deck and grab a Nexus Crawler, the most powerful Enemy in the game, to join your pack -- for three turns, after which he goes away, too. So it's a minor gain, net. But wait, the Nexus Crawler is a rare card thats obscenely hard to get. From a previous set. And, though the Nexus Crawler is fearsome, many basic commons (Nightmare Coin, etc.) allowed you to escape him. This was hilarious, IMO. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** A woman has a child every two seconds. We must find this woman and stop her

> Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote: > The terms used contradict since, within the industry, the terms > themselves are used casually and interchangeably. How does the interchangeability and casualty of two terms' usage establish a contradiction? > We do not use them casually, here, because they would make this > thread even more ambiguous. Would you care to support that satement? I made that statement that VTES is a collectable card game. My statement is supporeted by the facts that WotC and WW both have marketed VTES as "collectable" and there are collectors that acquire VTES cards only to complete a set, rather than play the game. It is advertised as being collectable and people collect it, therefore it is a CCG. In addition, People trade to complete collections or deck desings and it is marketed as tradeable, therefore it is a TCG. Therefore, my original statement that VTES is both a CCG and a CCG is correct. How is that ambiguous in any way? More importantly, how does not taking into consideration all aspects of a product's usage and marketing further obscure this thread, except to refute claims made by those on one side of the issue? > The issue at hand was whether or not White Wolf markets > VtES game components as collectible pieces, primarily, or whether the > emphasis on was their use as game components. No, the issue was whether White Wolf could ignore the importance of the collectability of VTES in the secondary market and the impact it has on the profitability of the product. Clearly, the game design itself has an emphasis on the game function, the distribution of cards in booster packs has an emphasis on establishing its collectability and marketing attempts to balance both goals. Again, there is no ambiguity. > (And note that this was a minor issue indeed in my previous post; From your post: > No WoTC TCG is marketed as a CG. > In addition, as we have already mentioned, VtES is not marketed as > presenting a collectable set. > Um, again, VtES isn't marked as collectable, ever. Minor, my ass. Why is it that when somebody makes a statement repeatedly and then it is refuted, they write it off as "minor"? > I have not seen White Wolf cater specifically to collectors in any concise, > meaningful way since their acquisition of VtES; Their repeated use of the word "collectable" in multiple places, including a press release, suggests that they aren't ignoring collectors either. > I have not seen significant on-line support from the parent company for > VtES collection by collectors, That is because, by fair use laws, companies are normally prohibited from influencing the cost of copyrighted products in the secondary market. However, EULA contracts, such as that on software and concert tickets, usually take precendence. In this instance, VTES has no such EULA so normal laws apply. > I was not arrogant in my post; it seems you have done your best to > paint me as such so you yourself could come off as arrogant. > And no, I was not arrogant in this post, either. I was disparaging. dis·par·age (di-sparij) tr.v. 1.To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. Explain to me the practical difference between being arrogant and being belittling? Translation: You were being a fuck nut and when I ran rough shod over you for it, you cried foul. Cry a river all you like, jackass. I don't give a fuck. You got what you deserved. > My advice: find something, outside of these postings, to take pride in. > If your ego is too fragile to handle disagreement, That advice, like all the rest of your statements thus far, is worth the paper it's printed on. My ego is far from fragile and I can not only handle constructive, informed disagreement, I revel in it. When you can provide such, I'll be happy to debate it on its merits. Which brings me to this: > Next time you post, please have enough self-respect to spell-check > your shoddy work. An "argument," indeed. The last gasp of a person who is losing an argument, and desperately wants to win at all costs, is almost always a flame about misspellings and typos. I find it amusing that when people do so, they invariably misspell something as well. The reason I find it amusing is that, instead of coming off as an intelligent, yet condescending, disputant, they come off as an obnoxious ass clown. For future reference, "spell check" is not a hyphenated word. Noal

Lemar Johnson wrote: > legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: > >And they DID bring out new cards > > for Netrunner and a new version of Rage. i think the NR Classic > > expansion was really very good, and i find it sad that so few people > > appreciate that very, VERY fine game. > > I didn't know there was another NetRunner expansion. Or maybe I did > and I'm confusing it -- there was only one expansion, yes? Two expansions: Proteus and Netrunner Classic. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The last gasp of a person who is losing an argument, and desperately >wants to win at all costs, is almost always a flame about misspellings >and typos. I find it amusing that when people do so, they invariably >misspell something as well. The reason I find it amusing is that, >instead of coming off as an intelligent, yet condescending, disputant, >they come off as an obnoxious ass clown. For future reference, "spell >check" is not a hyphenated word. > >Noal Might I suggest checking out the following URL if you are in need of assistance. It's suprisingly decent.. Http://www.dictionary.com Ciao, Bernie

On 24 Jul 2001 15:56:57 GMT, Ken shaw wrote: >In the L5R community Rolling Thunder is widely considered a disaster it >resulted in players feeling coerced into buying too much product too fast. It wasn't implemented as well as it might have been and so failed to change the CCG pattern as planned. Folk who started with Doomtown thought it was great though - collecting a new mini-set each month was a real buzz. And, without rares, it was no strain on the pocket or patience - the sort of thing that Jason Bell has been agitating for. Andrew

On 24 Jul 2001 07:08:31 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i think you are missing the RPG element in VTES, which DOES exist but >is not closely related to VtM role-playing. In VTES your deck IS your >character and like the character in more conventional RPGs it is an >extension of the real you, or of an aspect of the real you. I think not. Most of the deck is discipline cards which empower your minions, not yourself. And the master cards don't really develop the character of the master in any way. The game would be better in this respect if each player had a permanent master card like the outfit homes in Doomtown, the clan strongholds in L5R or the Vanguard cards in Magic. Is there background to drawn on here - are the Methusalehs named and characterised in the WoD books? Andrew

On 24 Jul 2001 06:29:44 -0700, legbiter wrote: >i'ld be tempted to rate Fundamentalist Islam as a more serious >ideological opposition in terms of ideas It still has the power to intimidate WotC into dropping the name Jyhad but it's just a dark-age religion that will fade in time along with the rest. Cruise missiles trump the Koran and the world knows it now. >Hehehe ... i hope you are right. But as a professional gene-cloner i'm >amazed at the extent of anti-scientism amongst even bright people who, >for example, play complicated card-games for fun. Of course, what's going to happen in the future is that games and reality will merge. Portents can been seen in Star Trek's holodecks, movies like Jurassic Park and The Matrix and online games like Everquest. One day, the world of darkness may be a real world, or real enough for its inhabitants. Check out Greg Egan's SF books for a good taste of the future. >Critically, of course, nobody would seriously challenge the judgement >that this is the best sealed-deck two-player CCG there has ever been, It ain't that good because I have a copy and never managed to start playing it, despite a couple of attempts. >Viability? Apparently so. Will this last in the medium-to-long term? >Guess we'll be finding out together. Do you need to sell 18 million >cards annually? No, you need to sell enough cards annually to pay your >production costs and to give your employees and yourself enough money >to buy Loose Cars and Fast [Wo]men. If you make the cards in countries >where [wo]men and cars are cheap and you sell them in countries where >they are dear, then the number you need to print and sell is less than >if the situation is reversed. In the long term you have the problem of exhausting the creative possibilities. And the problem of raising a huge barrier to entry for new fans who can't match the vast collections of the afficionados. What happens then is that your market freezes and eventually starts dying off. Look at hex wargames for a precedent... Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we ... Andrew

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:16:07 -0400, LSJ wrote: >WW reached the viability level with V:TES with the first half >of the Sabbat War release. I don't think that RSD's requirement >holds true for all companies. Maybe WotC's overhead is greater, >so they need more volume to attain "viability". Nowadays, Hasbro only appear to be interested in print runs of ~100+ million which means mass-market CCG like Harry Potter and MLB. Their operation is geared towards huge economies of scale with promotion to match and so they are deliberately shunning the boutique/hobby type of product that WW produces. Ryan's strategy was somewhere in between Hasbro and WW. That's why even his flagship CCG L5R has been discarded by Hasbro. I'm not convinced that even Magic can survive under the Hasbro regime - it's still too much of a hobby product and has little mass-market credibility. Andrew

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:37:56 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >I don't have a problem with a company wanting high moral standards. But you're >a fool if you think Ryan was just parroting a specific standard from Peter >Adkison. Don't you think its a bit unlikely that the same individuals who >created the game would find the game offensive? Not in the case of Peter Adkison - he stated that his girlfriend had raised his consciousness. But it's clear that Ryan thought that VTES had a unsavoury backstory. The issue is whether this determined his policy. Digging back even further, I find the following quote from you in Jan 98: >It is my understanding that Ryan Dancey (the VTES Brand Manager at FRPG) >was instrumental in getting The Sabbat re-released this past October. >This reprint is somewhat of a test for VTES. No products in '98 isn't >the end of the world. We have a whole year to increase interest with >demos and tournaments. I'm going to wait for the '99 catalogue before >I panic. It appears that the first thing Ryan did when becoming responsible for the game in Oct 97 was to arrange for the Sabbat reprint. This is the most repellent VTES set - the Sabbat's morality is clear and the art reflects this. But Dancey printed it anyway. Presumably it failed the implicit sales test but you didn't wait for the '99 catalogue and started panicking in Feb 98. It's also interesting to see his similar comments on Netrunner in Feb 98. This appears to be the same situation as VTES. He lists various flaws with the game. You could take issue with any or all of these - the lack of good/bad duality was supposed to be a flaw of VTES. But the bottom line was that the game just wasn't selling - that's what really mattered. Andrew >NR-L: Netrunner fans are obviously disappointed by WotC's >choice to put the game "on maintenance." What is it that >keeps it there? >RD: To be blunt: lack of sales. If I thought that >Netrunner could generate enough interest to maintain a >limited production schedule, I'd print it. We're currently >putting some ideas into place to gauge what the actual >market interest is for the game, and if results are >favorable, we'll reopen a discussion on printing more cards. >NR-L: Does Netrunner have some insurmountable tragic flaw? >RD: Netrunner has four major issues it must overcome, which >I will simply list instead of getting into a whole lot of >gory detail: >1. Lack of "Tribalization." There are no factional alliances >for the players. >2. Good Guy/Bad Guy duality. It's tough to play the runner >and the corp instead of one or the other. >3. No value from license. The R. Talsorian license doesn't >contribute much to the game. >4. No concept of "you." It is difficult to relate to a game >where "you" are an abstracted participant.

In message <20363D0D1A6C4CEC.C01787D7...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >The game would be better in this >respect if each player had a permanent master card like the outfit >homes in Doomtown, the clan strongholds in L5R or the Vanguard cards >in Magic. Is there background to drawn on here - are the Methusalehs >named and characterised in the WoD books? Such has been suggested and debated a number of times, not least in Darkness Unveiled where Methuselah archetypes were suggested. There is a lot of difficult grafting these onto the game, however, in a way that is balanced now. That something like Lo5R was drawn up with the strongholds early on makes it easier to fiddle with them. Also, it is difficult to add them into the game given the balance that has been gained between one tricky ponies and toolbox decks, and they're always difficult to add anyway. Consider say: Big Bashy Methuselah Put this card in play at the start of the game. Tap this card and pay 1 pool to give your minions +1 hand damage until your next untap phase. Whilst this card is tapped, you cannot play reaction cards. The down-side is pointless, because you simply construct a (perfectly viable) deck to avoid it, if you're someone like Peter playing a weenie Brujah rush deck. The toolbox deck, however, would be significantly affected by it, such that it would be difficult to find one that worked without seriously killing you. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "Surely somewhere out there there's a woman who's EBD690ECD7A1F been sodomized by her father and is capable of B457CA213D7E6 composing a few coherent sentences on the subject." 68C3695D623D5D

>Why I like the Ultra-rares... > >Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and >why? I'm going to assume "want" is being realistic. I want 4 Ezmereldas and 3 Augustuses (sp?) because I'd want to be able to build decks around their abilities. Sutekh can be searched out with Summon the Serpent. Ur-Shulgi has no meaningful ability. Why I dislike R1s - I have zero Ezmereldas.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:73FE482DE973F319.27540DF4...@lp.airnews.net... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:37:56 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > > >I don't have a problem with a company wanting high moral standards. But you're > >a fool if you think Ryan was just parroting a specific standard from Peter > >Adkison. Don't you think its a bit unlikely that the same individuals who > >created the game would find the game offensive? > > Not in the case of Peter Adkison - he stated that his girlfriend had > raised his consciousness. So, you actually believe that the FRPG morality statement came directly from Adkison because: 1) his direction to change the name Jyhad and; 2) this whole g/f business Geez, how could I have missed such an obvious sign that Adkison now thinks V:TES is immoral? Why is it so important to you to remove Ryan from the responsibility for the specific standard when he so obviously supports it? He's, at a minimum, more likely to be the author than Adkison. [clip] > Presumably it failed the implicit sales test but you didn't wait for the '99 catalogue and > started panicking in Feb 98. Again, we were all willing to wait for a trial for V:TES based on sales. However, our wait was interupted by the FRPG morality stuff which cast doubt over our future at an earlier date. We were all aware of the list of flaws of NR and V:TES. In fact, the Clan Newsletters were our attempt to highlight our "Tribalization". We were on a mission to demonstrate our viability. -Robert

Ian Lee wrote in message <20010724151808...@ng-cj1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. If you want to make a deck that depends greatly on certain vampires you can do 2 things. Have 3 or more of each of the vampires you need in your crypt or fill your deck with Recruiting Party, Effective Management, or the that Nosferatu card. I would much rather multiples of the vampire so I don't need to use a bunch of card slots to try and find the one I need. Interestingly enough the only one I really had plans to use was Ezmerelda. I needed 3 of her. I got zero (zip, zilch, nada) in 4 boxes of boosters. Really stinking annoying. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > The last gasp of a person who is losing an argument, and desperately > wants to win at all costs, is almost always a flame about misspellings > and typos. Hmm, in my experience, that gasp usually involves liberal application of insults and swear words, as you did in your post. > I find it amusing that when people do so, they invariably > misspell something as well. The reason I find it amusing is that, > instead of coming off as an intelligent, yet condescending, disputant, > they come off as an obnoxious a** clown. Ironic, considering how you have come off with your insulting, expletive laced effort. - Jason Bell

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Some want more copies of the rare vampires, I want at least 3 Week of Nightmares, since it may be the only card to save my Ravnos deck from a long stay in poopville. But even granting your point, acquiring those 2 of each R1 from buying Final Nights boosters would cost $550 at the retail price, assuming that the rares are distributed evenly in the packs (it could cost you as little as $44 and as much as all the money you have and then more). It is this sort of calculation that eventually drove me away from M:tG (where you needed as many as 4 of each rare from a 121 card sheet), why even as I played Magic I warned my non-playing friends away from it, and why I think the way the game pieces for TCGs are distributed is seriously flawed from a game play standpoint and even from a collector's standpoint. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >Science -is- changing humanity; look at the > difference between 1990 and today. What does worse television programming have to do with science? - Jason Bell

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote > > Viability? Apparently so. Will this last in the medium-to-long term? > Guess we'll be finding out together. Do you need to sell 18 million > cards annually? No, you need to sell enough cards annually to pay your > production costs and to give your employees and yourself enough money > to buy Loose Cars and Fast [Wo]men. If you make the cards in countries > where [wo]men and cars are cheap and you sell them in countries where > they are dear, then the number you need to print and sell is less than > if the situation is reversed. Curse those Canadians with their cheap cars and cheap women. - Jason Bell "Printed in Canada" - Final Nights booster

> > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote >> >> Why I like the Ultra-rares... >> >> Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and >> why? >> >> Matt > > Some want more copies of the rare vampires, I want at least 3 Week > of Nightmares, since it may be the only card to save my Ravnos deck > from a long stay in poopville. Light on Suddens in your environment? > But even granting your point, acquiring those 2 of each R1 from buying > Final Nights boosters would cost $550 at the retail price, assuming > that the rares are distributed evenly in the packs (it could cost you > as little as $44 and as much as all the money you have and then more). Meaning, a box or two and trading for the cards you want. Unless you want them all at once. That's the trading freak in me, of course. I really *like* trading; I didn't really care till I started trading, but now I'm hooked. It's neat to amass cards you want through a series of individual trades, and they keep showing up in your mail, rare by rare. It also helps build community, I think. You get more cross-playgroup communication with trading. It's a far more satisfying V:TES use of the Internet than rules queries. > It is this sort of calculation that eventually drove me away from M:tG > (where you needed as many as 4 of each rare from a 121 card sheet), > why even as I played Magic I warned my non-playing friends away > from it, and why I think the way the game pieces for TCGs > are distributed is seriously flawed from a game play standpoint > and even from a collector's standpoint. Is there a reason it hasn't driven you away from V:TES? And/or have you made the same arguments to WotC about M:TCH? I'll grant that WW is less of a "faceless company" than WotC to me (Atlanta bonus of seeing Steve Wieck at your tournaments =), but your personal arguments for this personal change take up a LOT of real estate here, and I was wondering if you've singled out WW as "mostly likely to listen to me," or if you are this prolific about the one topic all over USENET? It's obviously a crusade of yours, but are you expecting real changes from your commentary, or ... or what? -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote >> >> Why I like the Ultra-rares... >> >> Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and >> why? >> >> Matt > > Some want more copies of the rare vampires, I want at least 3 Week > of Nightmares, since it may be the only card to save my Ravnos deck > from a long stay in poopville. On trading, I'll point out that I've got a Week of Nightmares that I'll trade for (1) Augustus Giovanni OR any 2 of the following: Path of Bone Shroud Mastery Ex Nihilo Ecstatic Agony Perfect Clarity Actually, I've also got a Lupine Assault and a Mythic Form that I'll do the same for, but that's more general, since I can see people wanting several Week of Nightmares to make sure it shows up in their hand by mid-game (why I need so many Path of Bone, among other reasons =). [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<UL677.17175$bU6.3...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>... > "XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:d2f8d37b.01072...@posting.google.com... > > > Alternate methods is not limited to sets. I take it you are opposed to > > > sets. Is there any other method you could live with? For example, if > we > > > were to remove the rare sheet, and replace it with a second commone > sheet, > > > and just have boosters that contained 3 cards from common sheet 1; 3 > cards > > > from common sheet 2; 3 cards from a vampire sheet; and 2 cards from an > > > uncommon sheet. There is a different breakdown of the 11 cards you are > > > paying for, without the huge gaps/amounts of useless paper. > > > > > How is this substantially different than what they are already doing. > > What is the useless paper in final nights? Specifically, what did > > they do wrong and which cards are useless paper. How would your method > > of random boosters substantially differentiate from the current > > distribution method. > > The useless paper I am refering to is not the cards themselves/what they do. > My worthless paper is this(as a limited example, please keep that in mind): > My personal collection of Chimerstry cards from Final Nights(no trading so > far) > Amria Common 19 > Draba Common 19 > Fata Amria Rare 3 > Imposing Phantasm Rare 2 > Mirror Image Common 20 > Pseudo-Blindness Common 20 > Reality Common 23 > Red Herring Common 22 > Sensory Overload Common 19 > Shilmulo Deception Common 24 > Sleight of Hand Rare 4 > Path of Paradox, The Rare 2 (included to make things even) > > My paper problem is the same as why I think things could be different from > now. So I get about 3 of any rare, and 20 of any common. With only a > slight change in the rarity scheme things could be a little more equal. > Notice that there are actually 2 sets of commons per rares. Thats 40 > commons to 6 rares. Make it there cards from the rare sheet instead of one, > and I'd average 28 commons to 18 rares. Not too bad( 9 path of paradox to > 14 red herring) My excess 'paper' is anything really over ten or so cards. > So I am getting stuck with a bunch of cards I can't use. Sure I probably > wouldn't use 9 path of paradox either, but if I wanted to at least this way > I would have the option. White wolf certainly wouldn't have lost any sales > either. As it stands I bought all the final nights I will. With a rarity > scheme as above, I would have bougth the same amount. I would just have > more playable rares and less junk that will not see use.(none of this is > including the actual cards themselves, just there is nothing I could do with > 40 of any card, I'd just as soon trade those 10 in for 10 extra twising the > knife) The ratio is more like 7 to 1. That is the rarity in the boosters. I have to say that you're rarity is skewed for several reasons when addressing Chimerstry. 1)Chimerstry got alot of the common slots, because it is a Final Nights clan discipline. 2)Rare slots were for the majority reserved for non-Final Nights disciplines and cards that help non-Final nights clans and of courses the rare vampires. So, may I ask you what was your ratio of commons to rares for protean, or auspex, or obtenebration in your Final Nights boosters. 3)Do you really want Chimerstry cards to be rarer in a set that they release the clan that relies on them? > People that are buying cards just to collect sets(with no intention of > playing) would probably have an easier time getting the cards they need, > maybe white wolf would lose something there. Maybe players would buy more > cards, because they were getting a better deal? Maybe more people would > play because it wouldn't be seen as burning up your life savings on a single > game!(always an amazing plus to luring in new players) Maybe decks would be > more diversified as people would have more equal access to all the > cards...resulting in improved gameplay? I guess you didn't get this from my earlier posts, but I don't give a shit about collectors who have no interest in playing the game. I also don't think that they are a marketing target of WW's. > > The difference between a boxed set and a precon starter is about 80 to > > 100 cards. Also the purpose of a starter is distinctly different from > > a prepackaged set. A starter in put together to induce new players > > into a game. A prepackaged set is for collectors who can now say they > > have a whole set. Also, Players will more than likely buy more than > > one precon starter as opposed to a collector who will buy one set and > > then say," Now, I have one. I don't need to buy anymore." > > Not a personal thing, but why is it screw the collector? Seems like they > are already buying cards with no intention of using them other then to look > at. Making them buy alot of (possibly cool to use) commons/uncommons just > for a few rares to complete a set seems kind of mean. Probably turns some > collectors away, would you think? > I think I don't care about those people. I don't think that there is enough of them to make a difference, or WW would have changed its marketing to cater to them. <snip non-sold out distributors> > > > > > There was > > > > > nothing broken with random starter decks. > > > > > > > > LOL, that's a good one. have you ever just bought a Jyhad or VTES > > > > started and tried to play with it. You can't. It is incohesive. If > > > > you are lucky two vampires will be from the same clan. The random > > > > starters for Jyhad/VTES were awful. No one could start playing the > > > > game right out of the box. It was a bunch of cards that required > > > > diffent things that were in short supply. > > > > > > In the sense that you said 'if it isn't broke don't try to fix it' > There is > > > nothing to suggest that you should be able to play a random starter out > of > > > the box. There is nothing *broken* about having to construct a deck > before > > > you play, as far as I can tell. Is it better to have a starter deck > that > > > has some continuity, probably. But random starter decks are just like > big > > > boosters. If the starters were so bad then what makes the boosters so > good? > > > > > Then the name should be changed from random starter to super booster > > pack. You can not start to play VTES in any reasonable fashion if you > > buy one VTES starter. This discourages new players who become > > disillusioned and see this as as grand money making scheme and not a > > game. > > What something is called...what it is...all the same to me. I guess it > doesn't seem to fit the title "starter deck" as in, 'deck do start you off' > Maybe it origionally was ment only to 'start you off' It is a big pack of > cards, with alot of different stuff. It was the only place to get the > rulebook also. Probably you were only supposed to buy one, and then boost > your deck with the 'booster packs' And if you have never played VTES it > would be kinda bad if you went out and got 2 preconstructed starters...say > assamite and !Brujah. There would be alot of things you would miss out on. > Random starters pretty much force you to look at a wider mix(not good for > teaching, but good for trying out new mechanics) > They pretty much force you to shelve the product until someone shows you how to play so that you have an idea what you want so that you can trade for it. Isn't this what happed to you. > > > > There was no need for the > > > > > preconstructed. > > > > > > > > Are you on crack? Okay I will stop with the flames. How do you get > > > > new players interested in the game? You construct a deck and you give > > > > it to them. The Starters should have already done that. They didn't. > > > > So now we have pre-cons. > > > > They were very necessary. > > > > > > Same as above. You said that if nothing is broken don't fix it. > Necessary, > > > no. People could still learn to play, and make a deck with their cards. > > > Easier, nice, helpful, more fun...yes. My problem was that you said you > > > don't want to change anything because it's fine the way it is. I think > > > that, while its okay, it could be made better. 7 years ago they > probably > > > would have though you were on crack for talking about preconstructed > > > starters. And I am with you in saying that I think they are a very > valuable > > > resource. > > > > How many starters does a newbie have to buy before he can make a three > > discipline deck around a clan? 3, 4, 5, where do you stop? Now > > think, if there were noone around to teach you the game and you and a > > friend each bought one starter, then it would be pretty ridiculous to > > try to play them out of the box. Compare this with say Netrunner, > > which is an excellent straight out of the box game. > > That is what happened in my area, origionally, We got them...looked at > them. And we were very VERY confused. Needless to say we each put our > boxes away till someone else learned how to play, then taught us. I never > played Netrunner, but I believe you.(althought I would ask what makes it so > easy to play out of the box?) because you have two distict roles corperate (defensive) and runner (offensive) > > Fighting is competition at its most fundamental level. Crude, yes, > > but never the less entertaining. BTW, I in no means condone bullying, > > if that is what you are trying to get at. If you kick the shit out of > > a bully, well then I guess he got what he was asking for. > > I guess that's the way of the world. C'est le vie Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:73FE482DE973F319.27540DF4...@lp.airnews.net... > It appears that the first thing Ryan did when becoming responsible for > the game in Oct 97 was to arrange for the Sabbat reprint. This is the > most repellent VTES set - the Sabbat's morality is clear and the art Quite possibly true, regarding the morality bit. > reflects this. But Dancey printed it anyway. Presumably it failed > the implicit sales test but you didn't wait for the '99 catalogue and > started panicking in Feb 98. I fail to see how it could have failed any sort of sales test, because AFAIK, Sabbat basically flew off the shelves. Boxes have been popping up here and there, even up until recently, but I think that these were held onto as speculation that they would go up even higher than the approximately $300 (at least 33% above retail) they had been going for. Sabbat was virtually unavailable if you didn't get it instantly during the original release or the second printing. This suggests that either WotC did not plan their costs vs. sales appropriately, or that we are being misled about whether the sales goals were actually realistic. For all intents and purposes, Sabbat sold out both print runs. Xian

berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote in message news:<20010724141745...@ng-fg1.aol.com>... > >The last gasp of a person who is losing an argument, and desperately > >wants to win at all costs, is almost always a flame about misspellings > >and typos. I find it amusing that when people do so, they invariably > >misspell something as well. The reason I find it amusing is that, > >instead of coming off as an intelligent, yet condescending, disputant, > >they come off as an obnoxious ass clown. For future reference, "spell > >check" is not a hyphenated word. rotflol. Noal, calm yourslef. odn't oyu nkow htat psell-checkesr are hardd to sue. Comments Welcome, Nroman s. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swmap

Well, I'm going to officially withdraw from this thread before somebody gets hurt :) Obviously, 'rct-cj' is not the place to discuss this, though I would be happy to take this to a more appropriate newsgroup. Suffice to say that I disagree with everything Andrew said (except the science remark, which is kind of obvious). Cheers, WES

In message <dem77.1387$oZ4.4...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> writes >> reflects this. But Dancey printed it anyway. Presumably it failed >> the implicit sales test but you didn't wait for the '99 catalogue and >> started panicking in Feb 98. > >I fail to see how it could have failed any sort of sales test, because >AFAIK, Sabbat basically flew off the shelves. Somehow, Sabbat barely broke even, according to Dancey. We all know how fast it flew off shelves. We all know it needed to be reprinted. We all know how difficult it is to get hold of. This suggests, to me, that someone at WotC ballsed up somewhere on the costing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:27:14 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >He's, at a minimum, more likely to be the author than Adkison. Granted. My point is that Adkison was even more into political correctness and the like. Dancey's policy wasn't some maverick intrusion - it fit perfectly into WotC's developing corporate image-building. Big US companies love this kind of thing - I have to go through an ethics-compliance process every year myself. It's kinda like that immigration form I have to sign every time I visit the US, assuring them that I'm not a mass murderer, war criminal, etc. They've not yet thought to ask what kind of games I play ... >We were all aware of the list of flaws of NR and V:TES. In fact, the Clan >Newsletters were our attempt to highlight our "Tribalization". We were on a >mission to demonstrate our viability. That was a good idea which was much more likely to persuade Dancey than attacks on his other games. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > legbiter wrote: > > >i'ld be tempted to rate Fundamentalist Islam as a more serious > >ideological opposition in terms of ideas > > It still has the power to intimidate WotC into dropping the name Jyhad > but it's just a dark-age religion that will fade in time along with > the rest. Cruise missiles trump the Koran and the world knows it now. I'd say the trump is more along the lines of what's happening in Iran, where the youthful population terribly resents the limitations on their freedoms imposed by old clerics. Ok, we're waaaaay off topic now. - Jason Bell

Matt Latham wrote: > > Why I like the Ultra-rares... > > Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and > why? I've discovered through experience not to write any card off. You think it's wallpaper and someone finds a dozen-to-a-deck use for it. Go figure. Although Week of Nightmares and Abomination are really hard to imagine needing more than one or two of (if you'd ever want to use them at all), they're not in the league with Magic Legends expansion "bands-with-other-legends" land cards or the other truly bad Magic cards. So you might desire more than a couple as insurance. And all the vampires cards are definitely suspects. Any time a deck is designed around some vampire's ability or even an auspicious combination of disciplines, it might be one you'd want put 4 or more of in your crypt. Fred

I'm with Aaron on this one. In the past I've queried why V:TES/Sabbat War packs still cost so much for little return. The art is all paid from from previous sets (with a few exceptions). Other companies are turning out 15 card booster packs for the same retail as Sabbat War containing 11 cards. I'm not against White Wolf turning a profit at all. As long as we players don't feel as though we're being fleeced. 15 card booster packs make better sense for a number of reasons: 1. Designed as a multi-player game, it requires a greater number of resources than an atypical 2-player CCG. 2. Allows for better distribution of Common/Uncommon/ Rare/Vampire cards than the limited 11 card pack. >The ratio is more like 7 to 1. That is the rarity in the boosters. >I have to say that you're rarity is skewed for several reasons when >addressing Chimerstry. > >1)Chimerstry got alot of the common slots, because it is a Final >Nights clan discipline. >2)Rare slots were for the majority reserved for non-Final Nights >disciplines and cards that help non-Final nights clans and of courses >the rare vampires. So, may I ask you what was your ratio of commons >to rares for protean, or auspex, or obtenebration in your Final Nights >boosters. > 3)Do you really want Chimerstry cards to be rarer in a set that they >release the clan that relies on them? > >> People that are buying cards just to collect sets(with no intention of >> playing) would probably have an easier time getting the cards they need, Bernie Bresnahan

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:12D769BE528739F8.A382CC84...@lp.airnews.net... > It's kinda > like that immigration form I have to sign every time I visit the US, > assuring them that I'm not a mass murderer, war criminal, etc. Speaking of morality, how do you live with yourself after having to lie on your form every time you visit? :) > They've not yet thought to ask what kind of games I play ... I'm sure that's next. -Robert

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Jason Bell wrote: > > Some want more copies of the rare vampires, I want at least 3 Week > > of Nightmares, since it may be the only card to save my Ravnos deck > > from a long stay in poopville. ... > > But even granting your point, acquiring those 2 of each R1 from buying > > Final Nights boosters would cost $550 at the retail price, assuming > > that the rares are distributed evenly in the packs (it could cost you > > as little as $44 and as much as all the money you have and then more). > > Meaning, a box or two and trading for the cards you want. Unless you > want them all at once. > > That's the trading freak in me, of course. I really *like* trading; I > didn't really care till I started trading, but now I'm hooked. It's neat to > amass cards you want through a series of individual trades, and they keep > showing up in your mail, rare by rare. It also helps build community, I > think. You get more cross-playgroup communication with trading. It's a far > more satisfying V:TES use of the Internet than rules queries. I think your ideas about trading for R1s seem somewhat naive. It often works to trade an R1 for an R1. Trading R2s for R1s given the distribution of R2s and R1s in Final Nights should normally be an expensive proposition, unless you're a fantastic trader and/or luck into an excellent deal (for you, at least). Expect to get 2-3 R1s in a single box or 5-6 in two boxes - though from everything I've heard, you can easily get shut out of R1s in a single box and as few as one or two in any two boxes. So I don't think can say that it necessarily works to view trading as a fallback to buying lots and lots of packs. Maybe it could be but you still have to get lucky to do it. And some of us really don't have a huge pool of local folks to trade with. Great - now I have to trust the people I find on the net... > > It is this sort of calculation that eventually drove me away from M:tG > > (where you needed as many as 4 of each rare from a 121 card sheet), > > why even as I played Magic I warned my non-playing friends away > > from it, and why I think the way the game pieces for TCGs > > are distributed is seriously flawed from a game play standpoint > > and even from a collector's standpoint. > > Is there a reason it hasn't driven you away from V:TES? I assume that would be because it doesn't been done in V:tES up until now. Jyhad, VtES, and The Sabbat had 1-in-110 R1s, but every pack (or in Jyhad's case almost every pack) had the R1s, so the dynamic worked much differently. Trading and buying particular singles is much easier in that kind of a format. Fred

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:56:14 -0500, Xian wrote: >I fail to see how it could have failed any sort of sales test, because >AFAIK, Sabbat basically flew off the shelves. Boxes have been popping up >here and there, even up until recently, but I think that these were held >onto as speculation that they would go up even higher than the approximately >$300 (at least 33% above retail) they had been going for. Sabbat was >virtually unavailable if you didn't get it instantly during the original >release or the second printing. This suggests that either WotC did not plan >their costs vs. sales appropriately, or that we are being misled about >whether the sales goals were actually realistic. For all intents and >purposes, Sabbat sold out both print runs. That's not how Dancey saw it. The Q&A was: >> Speaking from a neutral point, do you [FRPG] *really* know >> how much you sell of V:tES? >Yes. They are one of the slowest selling products in our list of salable >items (WotC, TSR and FRPG combined). >Sabbat was, of course, an exception. The Sabbat reprint sold "quite a few" >cards, where "quite a few" is defined as less than 1/2 the size of the >smallest L5R expansion ever. The six months before and the months after the >reprint were all very, very low sellers for Sabbat and the rest of the VtES >product line. I gather that Sabbat boxes were available at below retail (~$50) at some point. It was a quite a huge set and that plus the NCL may have made the hard-core fanbase a bottomless pit of demand. It will have taken a while for this demand to make itself felt though - Noal didn't collect all those Deranges overnight as a player will only buy so much in a given period. This may explain why Dancey saw the set as a comparatively poor seller while fans still can't get enough of it. Andrew

In message <CEC6D8EDBA2DB8D2.7ABC3845...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I gather that Sabbat boxes were available at below retail (~$50) at >some point. It was a quite a huge set and that plus the NCL may have >made the hard-core fanbase a bottomless pit of demand. It will have >taken a while for this demand to make itself felt though Not really relevant here. Sabbat's first printing was all but unavailable and, in many areas of the world, totally unavailable when Dancey was in charge. [ quoted text not captured ]

I always hate coming across as the ignorant one, but what the hell is Rolling Thunder? I thought you were referring to a game at first, but it sounds more like a distribution concept of some kind? Cheers, WES

In message <9jli5...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >I always hate coming across as the ignorant one, but what the hell is >Rolling Thunder? I thought you were referring to a game at first, but it >sounds more like a distribution concept of some kind? It was an expansion, using a different distribution concept, if I'm remembering right. Instead of releasing 200 cards at once, release 50 cards on the first of January in their own mini-boosters. Release 50 cards on the first of February similarly. Then 50 more in March and 50 more in April. (Or some variation on this.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > Why I like the Ultra-rares... > > > > Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and > > why? > > I've discovered through experience not to write any card off. You think it's > wallpaper and someone finds a dozen-to-a-deck use for it. Go figure. > > Although Week of Nightmares and Abomination are really hard to imagine needing > more than one or two of (if you'd ever want to use them at all), they're not in > the league with Magic Legends expansion "bands-with-other-legends" land cards > or the other truly bad Magic cards. So you might desire more than a couple as > insurance. I think Week of Nightmares is amazing. If I can pry them away from the rest of my playgroup, I'd play 3 in my Ravnos deck. I've seen the card played a handfull of times, and the game always seems to end before the cost comes due. Two hand damage plus the incentive to block my actions would make my Dawn-Operating Ravnos almost playable. - Jason Bell

<snip> > > > He did a good job on Lo5R, for sure. > > Not all L5R players share this opinion. It's a relative thing and a > long story, so we'll leave it at that. Perhaps i'm confused here, but didn't Dancey's company INVENT Lo5R? If not, i completely withdraw my remark, which really meant kudos to whoever came up with lo5R - not my cup of tea gamewise, but obviously a non-wizards non-proprietary CCG that actualy works for some people. > > >And they DID bring out new cards > > for Netrunner and a new version of Rage. i think the NR Classic > > expansion was really very good, and i find it sad that so few people > > appreciate that very, VERY fine game. > > I didn't know there was another NetRunner expansion. Or maybe I did > and I'm confusing it -- there was only one expansion, yes? No, two - Proteus which was widely panned for containing some absurd cards [eg rent-to-own contract and moveable Ice], and Classic aka Silent Impact Lite, which is the one they brught out while Dancey was in charge. i liked Classic a lot. But the truth is that NR works best in sealed-deck format. > <snip> > > > > > > Some folk suggested that a Hunter/Slayer expansion would be a good way > > > of addressing this but he didn't go for it - said that he expected > > > that existing fans would be hostile. It's a shame he didn't give this > > > a try as I would probably have liked it. > > > > i would like to see this, too, and so would Sarah i'm sure. i know it > > sounds funny but we really, REALLY don't like vampires. > > What's to like? They're immortal monsters who need to be destroyed for > the sake of humanity. Some of the clans are neat, though, in concept. > Hunter, on the other hand, sucked, and sucked bigtime. I abhor it. It > completly contradicted the only cool thing about fighting vampires: a > mortal had to be constantly on his toes because his foes are holding > most of the cards. Instead, Hunter first made these people metahumans, > in complete defiance to established theme and common sense, then > categorized them in typical, deplorable White Wolf fashion. Everything > they touch must have clans. Hunter is a piece of crap. If humans are > to have a bigger role in Jyhad, especially as opposition to Kindred > activities, the designers would be well advised to seek inspiration > from other sources than their parent company. Interesting. i have to admit i've not looked at Hunter at all. Maybe i won't, now! > > > > Was the Wyrm expansion for > > > Rage a success? Did players like playing the opposition? > > > > Opinions differ about that. Most of the Rage players i know LOVED it > > but as another poster remarks further down this was not a universal > > feeling. Not controversial is that the Wyrm had the best foil in Count > > Vladimir Rustovich and the worst foil in Churjoroc's tusk. > > Not controversial? Then why did you bring it up? Did you mean that it > was not _un_controversial? Er, no, i just thought that point about the foils was the only thing that everyone agreed on about the Wyrm expansion. > > Oh, how I loved Churjoc's Tusk! It represented almost everything that > was wrong with Rage! For those not in the know: > > The Tusk is an ultra-rare foil card. It allows you to kill off the > powerful Black Spiral Dancer character that holds it (it has a high > Gnosis requirement, meaning the holder is probably significant). So > you're down a peep -- a good one. But wait, there's more. You can go > through your deck and grab a Nexus Crawler, the most powerful Enemy in > the game, to join your pack -- for three turns, after which he goes > away, too. So it's a minor gain, net. > > But wait, the Nexus Crawler is a rare card thats obscenely hard to > get. From a previous set. > > And, though the Nexus Crawler is fearsome, many basic commons > (Nightmare Coin, etc.) allowed you to escape him. > > This was hilarious, IMO. > > -- Lemar Johnson > Didn't there have to be a Full Moon in play, too, for the card to come off?

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<8AFC8F4845957288.116CEB54...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 24 Jul 2001 06:29:44 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >i'ld be tempted to rate Fundamentalist Islam as a more serious > >ideological opposition in terms of ideas > > It still has the power to intimidate WotC into dropping the name Jyhad That was a sop to Israeli sensibilities, not Islamic ones. > but it's just a dark-age religion that will fade in time along with > the rest. Cruise missiles trump the Koran and the world knows it now. Hmmm. This calls for a MASSIVE reply or none at all. Suffice it for the moment and on this NG to say that Islam is the most modern of all the big religions in every conceivable sense, that weapons of mass destruction can be built by anyone nowadays, and that you don't need rockets for pinpoint delivery anymore if your soldiers are prepared to WEAR the dam' things. > <snip> > > >Critically, of course, nobody would seriously challenge the judgement > >that this is the best sealed-deck two-player CCG there has ever been, > > It ain't that good because I have a copy and never managed to start > playing it, despite a couple of attempts. Ah, well you should persevere. i had the same trouble at the start, but it really IS worth the effort of getting into NR. > > >Viability? Apparently so. Will this last in the medium-to-long term? > >Guess we'll be finding out together. Do you need to sell 18 million > >cards annually? No, you need to sell enough cards annually to pay your > >production costs and to give your employees and yourself enough money > >to buy Loose Cars and Fast [Wo]men. If you make the cards in countries > >where [wo]men and cars are cheap and you sell them in countries where > >they are dear, then the number you need to print and sell is less than > >if the situation is reversed. > > In the long term you have the problem of exhausting the creative > possibilities. And the problem of raising a huge barrier to entry for > new fans who can't match the vast collections of the afficionados. > What happens then is that your market freezes and eventually starts > dying off. Look at hex wargames for a precedent... i think games die when the fad that prompted them expires, or when they become so incestuous that outsiders cannot get in to the frame. Great games, however, survive. i'm of the belief that the basic structure of VTES is SOOO strong that it WILL survive for a long, long time. <snip>

legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote : > > Hunter, on the other hand, sucked, and sucked bigtime. I abhor it. It > > completly contradicted the only cool thing about fighting vampires: a > > mortal had to be constantly on his toes because his foes are holding > > most of the cards. Instead, Hunter first made these people metahumans, > > in complete defiance to established theme and common sense, then > > categorized them in typical, deplorable White Wolf fashion. Everything > > they touch must have clans. Hunter is a piece of crap. If humans are > > to have a bigger role in Jyhad, especially as opposition to Kindred > > activities, the designers would be well advised to seek inspiration > > from other sources than their parent company. > > Interesting. i have to admit i've not looked at Hunter at all. Maybe i > won't, now Don't listen to him, Leggy. The "metahuman" angle of Hunter is only there to keep your characters from becoming grease spots on the front wheel of a vampire's Hawg or from having your Entrails Rended too easily. The important part of the game (if you play them for the actual role-playing) is coming to terms with the reality of the World of Darkness. Run well, you've got an excellent platform for a horror and paranoia-based game - no matter what superpowers you have. Also, the more "metahuman" a Hunter character becomes (i.e., the more Edges he manifests or Virtues she develops), the more insane and distant from the main stream of humanity he gets. Like Vampire's Humanity versus the Beast and Werewolf's failure to avert the Apocalypse, it's a great theme to tell a story with. --Matt

On 25 Jul 2001 01:21:19 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) said: >> I didn't know there was another NetRunner expansion. Or maybe I did >> and I'm confusing it -- there was only one expansion, yes? legbiter> No, two - Proteus which was widely panned for containing legbiter> some absurd cards [eg rent-to-own contract and moveable legbiter> Ice], and Classic aka Silent Impact Lite, which is the one legbiter> they brught out while Dancey was in charge. i liked Classic legbiter> a lot. But the truth is that NR works best in sealed-deck legbiter> format. A bit off-topic, but... the absurd cards in Proteus weren't Rent-To-Own (which is quite balanced and fun) or movable ice (which is also balanced with its cost), but absurdly powerful virii like Scaldan and some stupid "let's play solitaire" runner cards like Poisoned Water Supply. I still rather like Proteus, it has nice cards in the set. Classic is also nice, but it was ruined by *horrible* marketing. No ads, and with the new expansion having the braindead name "Classic" and looking almost exactly like the base Netrunner set, most people never even realized there had been a new expansion. Oh well, Netunner is pretty dead now, but so was VTES for quite a while... there's still hope, and there are ongoing negotiations for a private party to purchase the game from WotC/Hasbro. We'll see. Netrunner remains my favorite two-person CCG. Now back to your scheduled VTES talk and Ryan Dancey bashing :). //Petri

In message <68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes ><snip> >> >> > He did a good job on Lo5R, for sure. >> >> Not all L5R players share this opinion. It's a relative thing and a >> long story, so we'll leave it at that. > >Perhaps i'm confused here, but didn't Dancey's company INVENT Lo5R? It did. I've no idea how much input Dancey had on strategies for marketing at any given point, however. >> What's to like? They're immortal monsters who need to be destroyed for >> the sake of humanity. Some of the clans are neat, though, in concept. >> Hunter, on the other hand, sucked, and sucked bigtime. I abhor it. It >> completly contradicted the only cool thing about fighting vampires: a >> mortal had to be constantly on his toes because his foes are holding >> most of the cards. Instead, Hunter first made these people metahumans, >> in complete defiance to established theme and common sense, then >> categorized them in typical, deplorable White Wolf fashion. Everything >> they touch must have clans. Hunter is a piece of crap. If humans are >> to have a bigger role in Jyhad, especially as opposition to Kindred >> activities, the designers would be well advised to seek inspiration >> from other sources than their parent company. > >Interesting. i have to admit i've not looked at Hunter at all. Maybe i >won't, now! Actually, I quite like bits of Hunter. (Not played it, however.) Addressing the clan point first of all, well, yes, it's a big White Wolf thing. But it actually *works* on a story-telling (and a Story-Telling) level. If you treat everyone as individuals, completely free to do what they want, however they want, it tends to be less easy to make significant impact with them. If you set up stereotypes and systems and deviate within those constraints, you can get a lot more fulfilment and satisfaction out of the end result. (Whilst it's not the only way for art to work, by any means, it's the way quite a large amount of good art (literature, music, painting etc.) works.) A person who fights against the vileness of the Tzimisce clan, grappling a few last vestiges of humanity, living on their wits, hiding from what they've become, can have a far more significant, dramatic impact. Treating everyone as individuals within a framework of stereotypes is good, IMO. On Hunter specifically, there are some nice elements. First of all, it's the first major RPG from White Wolf I've seen where the players don't have a clue what's going on. A rogue Caitiff in V:tM or a self- aware Orphan in Mage are about the closest you get. Much of Hunter can be driven as personal exploration, a character trying to figure out who and what they are in context, without a friendly Sire or Tribe to educate them. Those who have anyone to talk to should usually be far more rare than those who don't. The system is also quite loose, in that there are only three basic "clans", providing structure without the temptation of rigid shackles. The game is also very *now*, in a manner that WtA gets close to. Vampire has a lot of gothic history playing behind it, and it's all too easy to view the here and now as just as extension of all that's gone on. Mage and Wraith can get tied up in their own self, rather than interacting with the world, if they're not careful. Changeling is Just Plain Odd. Hunter is here, Hunter is now, with seat-of-the-pants technology. It's a very immediate game. There isn't the Jyhad guiding your actions. You don't feel that everything is necessarily going to end up in Apocalypse despite what you do. The problems are *right there* in front of you. What you do will, of course, have an effect on the long term future, but it will also affect things Right Now. There are some down-sides, mostly mechanical. Ward is ludicrously powerful. A character with a couple of points will be able to hold you at bay relatively easily. They're rolling Stamina+Zeal, you're rolling Stamina. You have to beat their number of successes! And the power lasts for the entire scene without concentration. For me, one of the really nice things about Hunter is that you can imagine almost anyone becoming Imbued. It could, quite literally, be you that goes out and sees the Walking Dead and hears the call.[0] With Ward, I can't do jack about you unless I have good ranged weapon skills - a gun, or throwing knives. How many 'ordinary' people are any good with such? Imagine your wife, your boss, your mother, your postman. Any of those could be Imbued. Unlike Vampire, there isn't the likelihood of someone screening you for ages. Unlike Mage, you aren't likely to be particularly self-aware/intelligent (in that sort of sense). Werewolf has the whole parentage thing - you have inherited the traits of another Werewolf, so you should hopefully be vaguely cut out for it. That a few cock-ups like this mean that, if someone starts using these powers extensively, you would have to min-max to get by them (creating powerful stats sheets, rather than interesting characters) is moderately annoying. [0] Metaphorically speaking, in a literal sense. Or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 04:04:58 -0500, Matthew Heslin wrote: > Also, the more "metahuman" a Hunter character becomes (i.e., the >more Edges he manifests or Virtues she develops), the more insane >and distant from the main stream of humanity he gets. Like Vampire's >Humanity versus the Beast and Werewolf's failure to avert the >Apocalypse, it's a great theme to tell a story with. It also seems to be good for doing Buffy. There the characters started out as innocent high-school teens but have all been developing a dark side: Buffy - "the gift of the slayer is death!" Willow - deep into the black arts now Oz - a werewolf Anya - a former vengeance demon Riley - a mutinous super-commando Giles - has acquired a dark past as "Ripper" Angel - a vampire with a soul Xander is the only one who is still just an average joe but, as was pointed out on the Feng Shui list, he must be the Everyday Hero - the character blessed with a high level of good luck. When all the class were given eggs to nuture, only he had the street-smarts to cheat by hard-boiling his and so escaped being taken over by the demon spawn that they proved to contain. On the other hand, I have flipped through the Hunter book and didn't like the look of it. It didn't seem to be much use as source material for the hunters in VTES - the Society of Leopold, Jake Washington, etc. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] The concept was small monthly releases - 50 card sets packed as commons and uncommons with a couple of fixed unique cards in the starter. By buying a starter and 8 boosters, a player would get all the cards he needed for that month. That would cost about $25 - a comparatively painless amount compared the cost of a set in the traditional model. The idea was to get players to place a regular standing order in the same way that they bought every issue of their favorite comics. I think it mainly didn't work because a player wouldn't want to buy a whole box unless he could split it with someone and you needed about 8 players to soak up a big combo box. If the retail order unit had been smaller, it might have worked better. Andrew

"Matthew Heslin" <hes...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:<9jm31u$s66$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ahah, this sounds MUCH more the ticket and close to the Call of Cthulhu concept, which i kinda hoped it would be. From what Lemar was saying i thought maybe it was more like Aeon: Trinity, a nicely-designed game but really rather closer to the Marvel Superheroes genre and so not my thing, dear. But i trust your judgement, and probably i will now pick up a copy if only for catharsis' sake. Sarah and i just finished a VtM chronicle by destroying ourselves [suicide by Prince] because we were SOOO fed up with vampires [including our own characters] and their stupid politics and eating habits. Now we want to napalm the brutes. "Majesty your way out of this fire-and-forget fuel-air weapon, Hellspawn!" Sorry, sorry. We are old-time hack-n-slay RPGers and NEED to Meet Monsters, Kill Them and Steal Their Treasure.

On 25 Jul 2001 05:41:48 -0700, legbiter wrote: >We are old-time hack-n-slay RPGers and NEED to Meet Monsters, Kill >Them and Steal Their Treasure. Yup. I haven't seen it yet but am strongly tempted to buy the new Hackmaster book from Kenzer & Co. It's a spoof but is supposed to actually play well in the old Monty Hall, D&D style. Andrew

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:41:55 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] "You kill the troll. An enormous treasure chest falls out of its back pocket!" Ah, the good old days. =) -- Derek [THIS SPACE FOR RENT]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Partly because it's there. And partly because I've always thought > Dancey to be one of the more interesting and intelligent characters in > the games industry. His posts are always a pleasure to read, even if > I don't agree with them. I don't like to see him being slagged off > behind his back, especially on such flimsy grounds. As this is a "public" forum and Dancey has posted here before, I can not in good faith take anything posted here in reference to his actions concerning the game, which, is the basis of this NG and thus on topic, however slight, to be behind his back. And Yes. I can in good faith totally believe you when you say he is a intelligent and interesting 'player' in the gaming industry. However, as a public front person, your every word, good or bad, becomes the rally cry for the people whom you promoted or cut down. In this case, Mr Dancey came out publicly against support of VTES and made those views 'seem' as is they were personal views against promoting the game. Nothing can change the past, but perhaps if he were to someday clarify publicly his attitude on the game, then we might be able to come to closure. Raille

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > >Science -is- changing humanity; look at the > > difference between 1990 and today. > > What does worse television programming have > to do with science? We get better television sets! Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] And as a result, we get dumber people! =) Note that I didn't say that it was changing humanity for the BETTER in all ways. ;) (still can't see anything from RoadRunner. This sucks) -- Derek Jesus saves, and only takes half damage

> From: Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> > > I think it mainly didn't work because a player wouldn't want to buy a > whole box unless he could split it with someone and you needed about 8 > players to soak up a big combo box. If the retail order unit had been > smaller, it might have worked better. Another possible explanation that should not be overlooked is that retailers did /not/ reduce their ordering quantities by two-thirds. Any one who had done the math could have seen that they were getting three times the product, but I doubt many retailers cared enough to be close attention. I have anecdotal evidence that this occurred. Nothing kills a CCG idea like 'overprinting', or especially the perception that an expansion is /too/ easily available (cf. Fallen Empires). I don't think the retail order unit needed to be smaller. After all, if a retailer can't sell to three customers, then the game is dead to him anyway. On the other hand, I would have offered a box-like discount of some kind to anyone who bought one of each starter and eight boosters. -scott \\ sdib...@student.umass.edu "I figured if I couldn't pick it up, I gotta have it!" -- Tasty Taste, hefting a bazooka; _Fear of a Black Hat_

Derek Ray wrote in message <33ptltk1hli9u4fgr...@4ax.com>... >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:19:34 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > >>Jason Bell wrote: >>> >>> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >>> > >>> >Science -is- changing humanity; look at the >>> > difference between 1990 and today. >>> >>> What does worse television programming have >>> to do with science? >> >>We get better television sets! > >And as a result, we get dumber people! =) He he he... Boy isn't that the sorry truth. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

Raille wrote in message <3B5EE23E...@mich.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Correctly stated. I have been staying out of this thread, but this post summed it up well. I was around when Mr. Dancey made his rather ill advised statements concerning VTES. The way they were stated made it seem they were personal. I'm sure Dancey is a great guy, good player, and asset to the gaming world. However his statements and actions in relation to VTES during that period were very destructive to the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> That's the trading freak in me, of course. I really *like* trading; I >> didn't really care till I started trading, but now I'm hooked. It's neat to >> amass cards you want through a series of individual trades, and they keep >> showing up in your mail, rare by rare. It also helps build community, I >> think. You get more cross-playgroup communication with trading. It's a far >> more satisfying V:TES use of the Internet than rules queries. > > I think your ideas about trading for R1s seem somewhat naive. Well, then educate me. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "naďve." (However, note: I'm not a "dollar value" trader, if that's your point. I trade what seems like cards I don't need that much, at least not right at the time, for cards I want more of to play with. I often trade rares for rares, etc. but on many trades I've trades uncommons for rares, vamps for uncommons, etc. It's almost always a package deal of "cards I can't really use in a deck" for "cards that allow me to make a deck that I want.") > It often works to trade an R1 for an R1. Which I've done, not being a collector. Trading away Sutekh for Augustus, for instance. So now I don't have any Sutekhs, of course, but I can do more with 2 Augustus. > Trading R2s for R1s given the distribution of R2s > and R1s in Final Nights should normally be an expensive proposition, unless > you're a fantastic trader and/or luck into an excellent deal (for you, at > least). Expect to get 2-3 R1s in a single box or 5-6 in two boxes - though > from everything I've heard, you can easily get shut out of R1s in a single box > and as few as one or two in any two boxes. I got 6 in 2 boxes. I've traded away 1 for 1, and traded away 1 of them for 2 R2's (Shroud Masteries, not Smoke Grenades). From what I've heard, getting 5-6 in two boxes is quite normal. I've certainly heard beefs of not getting all 8 R1's in 3 or 4 boxes. > So I don't think can say that it necessarily works to view trading as a > fallback to buying lots and lots of packs. Beat of a leap there, you may have lost me; Are you saying "If I want R1's, I have to have R1's to trade for them, R2's won't do, and I could get screwed on the numbers of R1's I get with even two whole boxes?" If so, ok. I will point out that I traded away an R1 for 2 R2's, kind of the proof that you can get R1's you want without R1's to trade. > Maybe it could be but you still have to get lucky to do it. Again, I might be losing you. Is this still "lucky" getting enough R1's that I "require" in order to get R1's? > And some of us really don't have a huge pool of > local folks to trade with. Great - now I have to trust the people I find on > the net... I do maybe 10% of my trading with my local group, maybe less. I've completed some 20 or so online trades since "catching the bug," and haven't been burned yet. It's not like I'm out there in a high-demand forum attracting predatory frauders. Also, there are some excellent sites (Succubus Club, Communal Haven) and this newsgroup to find trades with people, where it's even to get trading references. (One usually starts with people you're sure you can trust on the newsgroup, or better yet, people you met at tournaments, and who you know you'll see again.) And that might seem naďve to you, as well, but I've have some near misses and been burned (but been able to recover my stuff) in other online trading (SwitchHouse, if you're curious, which as a more juvenile clientele), and have stayed away from EBay, where I hear about the most attempted fraud. As I posted a while ago, I was impressed with how easy it is to find and make trades in the V:TES community, and the bulk of replies to the thread was "I've had no problem, either," with only a couple "That Rat Bastad screwed you, too?" >>> It is this sort of calculation that eventually drove me away from M:tG >>> (where you needed as many as 4 of each rare from a 121 card sheet), >>> why even as I played Magic I warned my non-playing friends away >>> from it, and why I think the way the game pieces for TCGs >>> are distributed is seriously flawed from a game play standpoint >>> and even from a collector's standpoint. >> >> Is there a reason it hasn't driven you away from V:TES? > > I assume that would be because it doesn't been done in V:tES up until now. > Jyhad, VtES, and The Sabbat had 1-in-110 R1s, but every pack (or in Jyhad's > case almost every pack) had the R1s, so the dynamic worked much differently. > Trading and buying particular singles is much easier in that kind of a format. Well, Jason seems to be complaining about the Sabbat War/Final Nights 7C/3U/1R distribution, not specifically the R1 vs. R2 thing. For the record, I don't think the distribution is perfect. I thought that if they're going to have the R1's, they chose fairly well which ones, though. And if you just want to buy 2 or 3 boxes of cards and have all the cards you could ever need, no more and no less, and you don't like to trade, then I can certainly see you being annoyed. I just enjoy the trading, and have found it to be easy, painless, safe and reliable, with the added benefit of getting to interact and see a bit more of the V:TES community across the USA and the whole world. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:07:02 -0700, Steve Bucy wrote: >I'm sure Dancey is a great guy, good player, and asset to the gaming world. >However his statements and actions in relation to VTES during that period >were very destructive to the game. What destructive actions? The main concrete action that I can see is that he reprinted Sabbat. When WW did this, they were hailed as heroes. When Dancey did it, he just got a lot of abuse for not doing more. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:CEC6D8EDBA2DB8D2.7ABC3845...@lp.airnews.net... > >whether the sales goals were actually realistic. For all intents and > >purposes, Sabbat sold out both print runs. > > That's not how Dancey saw it. The Q&A was: > > >> Speaking from a neutral point, do you [FRPG] *really* know > >> how much you sell of V:tES? > > >Yes. They are one of the slowest selling products in our list of salable > >items (WotC, TSR and FRPG combined). Note that he is specifically *not* referring to the Sabbat expansion in the text above, as evidenced by the following: > >Sabbat was, of course, an exception. The Sabbat reprint sold "quite a few" > >cards, where "quite a few" is defined as less than 1/2 the size of the > >smallest L5R expansion ever. The six months before and the months after the Whether or not Sabbat was less than half the size of Legend of the 5 Rings (sidenote: Had L5R sold out an expansion up to that point in time, such that it required a reprint?) can hardly be blamed on the consumers. That one is in WotC's court, pre-Dancey, I believe. > >reprint were all very, very low sellers for Sabbat and the rest of the VtES > >product line. Probably due to the glut of the market that WotC provided by thoughtfully renaming and reprinting huge amounts of V:tES. You can still buy Ancient Hearts, but I've never seen it for less than retail. Dark Sovereigns, sure, but that was a pretty weak expansion, all in all. > I gather that Sabbat boxes were available at below retail (~$50) at > some point. It was a quite a huge set and that plus the NCL may have Perhaps. Quite possibly for distributors. I have never seen them for that price. Any time I've seen them available (which has been quite rare since it was printed and then reprinted), they've been going at or above retail. Sabbat was, hands down, the most popular set produced by WotC, and in the 5 (? has it been that long?) years since it came out, I've had steady internet access, and I've had loads of trouble finding any. > made the hard-core fanbase a bottomless pit of demand. It will have > taken a while for this demand to make itself felt though - Noal didn't Again, perhaps. I have no facts to back it up, but then again, neither do you. :) I've got anecdotal evidence that Sabbat has pretty much always been hard to acquire, and sold at or above retail. I'd be interested to hear who was finding it for $50 a box, and where they found it. > collect all those Deranges overnight as a player will only buy so much > in a given period. This may explain why Dancey saw the set as a > comparatively poor seller while fans still can't get enough of it. Could be. Again, V:tES apparently had smaller print runs than L5R, but WotC's inability to estimate an appropriately sized print run and profit margins seems to be the true culprit behind any poor selling. If the first print run sold out, they must have screwed something up big to not have made a profit. Xian

In message <78A34BC14AAB0719.AA60F1FE...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >What destructive actions? The main concrete action that I can see is >that he reprinted Sabbat. When WW did this, they were hailed as >heroes. When Dancey did it, he just got a lot of abuse for not doing >more. Spurious non-sequitur-ish strawman. Dancey did not get abuse for re-printing Sabbat. Please, at least try and make your trolls a little less transparent. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:<9jk20i$lft$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>... > Why I like the Ultra-rares... > > Is there any card on the Ultra-Rare list that you want more than 2 of, and > why? > > Matt The Vampires, because I can think of some fun decks that require 4-5 of each. The week of nightmares, I'd want 4 of those for my ravnos deck. An abomination deck could probably use 3-4 of those, so as to see one at some point in a game. Mythic Form: 7-15 depending on the amount to which the combat deck depends on them... Lupine assult: 1 because the look on the face of the guy holding the gun is just funny. Cameron

Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:fVH77.275$fH6.2...@news.uswest.net... > > I gather that Sabbat boxes were available at below retail (~$50) at > > some point. It was a quite a huge set and that plus the NCL may have > > Perhaps. Quite possibly for distributors. I have never seen them for that > price. Any time I've seen them available (which has been quite rare since > it was printed and then reprinted), they've been going at or above retail. > Sabbat was, hands down, the most popular set produced by WotC, and in the 5 > (? has it been that long?) years since it came out, I've had steady internet > access, and I've had loads of trouble finding any. Potomac Distribution had Sabbat at $50-65 for over two years in the last part of the last century. Of course, they were making up for that recently with their $288 price. (Now sold out again.) http://www.potomacdist.com/list.asp?A=v Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > It also seems to be good for doing Buffy. Er... maybe the episodes where loved ones die and friends are convinced that the Slayer has lost her mind. Those spring to mind. : ) > On the other hand, I have flipped through the Hunter book and didn't > like the look of it. It didn't seem to be much use as source material > for the hunters in VTES - the Society of Leopold, Jake Washington, > etc No... I understand Wendell Dellburton was mentioned in the Avenger creed book, but Hunter (for the most part) doesn't single out too many signature characters. You'll see a few pop up again and again, but they're usually examples of the Hunter trying to deal with her distance from humanity or trying to make the most of her new superhumanity. For every altruistic defender of the weak, there seems to be a guy who claims to be the Second Coming of Christ who builds a cult to himself in a trailer park. There's a V:tES card for ya. --Matt

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:35:19 -0500, Xian wrote: >Had L5R sold out an expansion up to that point in time, such >that it required a reprint? L5R went through several base sets - Imperial, Emerald, Pearl, Jade and now Gold. The expansions were all tied into the storyline and so one would not expect them to be reprinted. Boxes for many sets now command premium prices. >Again, perhaps. I have no facts to back it up, but then again, neither do >you. :) I've got anecdotal evidence that Sabbat has pretty much always >been hard to acquire, and sold at or above retail. I'd be interested to >hear who was finding it for $50 a box, and where they found it. The Lasombra has kindly given us the relevant facts. Here are some more, courtesy of Ryan S. Dancey: >I won't use real numbers (they're a company secret). But imagine if >Jyhad sales were $50. VtES sales were $10. The expansions were $9, >$5, and $4. >What does that trend tell you? It's these cold, hard numbers which determined Dancey's policy towards VTES, not his opinion that vampires are evil. Andrew

Xian wants facts. Here's a typical Dancey post I've just unearthed from my archives - full of professional insider detail. It's this sort of post that made him so interesting to read. The one thing you won't find in here is any discussion of morality and ethics. Presumably that's one of the "second-order" issues that he alludes to. Andrew On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 04:01:48 GMT, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: >>Grr... this is the second time I've seen Jyhad bashing on this ng. Do you >>people know what you're talking about? > >{ BIG SIGH ] > >Yes, unlike everyone else on this list, >I< know exactly what I'm >talking about when it comes to VtES/Jyhad. Unlike >you< I have seen >the financials, the P&L, the contracts, the cost of goods, the >business plan, the expenses in marketing, the organized play figures, >and every other scrap of detail regarding the brand. > >TCGs die. That's an observable fact. The reasons why they die are >legion, but there is one underlying reason that each and every dead >TCG has passed away: > >LACK OF SALES. > >I just don't know how to put it in any plainer terms. VtES >DOESN"T >SELL< It sells in dribs and drabs and bits and peices, and in some >places it sells really, really well. Those places are an anomoly, and >there are not enough of them to justify printing new cards. And >what's worse, VtES, unlike a whole lot of other games, has an >international base of players, so sales can come globally, not just >domestically - AND IT STILL DOESN'T SELL ENOUGH CARDS. > >Sales for every printing of Jyhad/VtES product were vastly smaller >than projected. The final product, The Sabbat, even though it was >printed in two batches, was had a huge card count, and had the most >consumer-unfriendly distribution packout in the entire industry >>barely< broke even, and if all costs were fully and accurately >loaded, it would have lost tens of thousands of dollars. Products at >FRPG >always< have full and accurate cost loads - when I say something >makes money, it makes money. When I say something loses money, it >loses money - no cheap accounting tricks to shift dollars around. > >See, with a trading card game, you can't print a couple of hundred >thousand cards. You've got to print at least six million cards, >minimum, in order to break even on all the costs associated with >supporting a TCG brand. Six million cards works out to be about >10,000 displays of product (15 card boosters, 36 boosters per >display). In order to sell 10,000 displays of product, every actively >purchasing adventure game store in the US would have to purchase >FOUR >DISPLAYS OF PRODUCT<. That's an unreasonable amount to expect to sell >sucessfully. What's worse, on average, only 30% of the domestic AGI >stores buy any TCG other than Magic, Star Wars or L5R with any >regularity. If only 30% of them bought those displays, they'd each >need to buy twelve units - an impossibility. > >Another VtES problem: I can't put it into Rolling Thunder. If the >initial sales of the product tank, I'm stuck with 2/3 of the print run >and absolutely no way to sell it. With a risky proposition like a >VtES expansion, to protect myself and the company, I've got to ship >those six million cards out the door on release day. We couldn't RT >the game until we were certain that we'd sell at least three >consecutive months of product. > >The overseas market for non Magic, non media-licensend TCGs is about >25% the size of the domestic market. For VtES, the European market >offers some hope, as they tended to buy VtES product in higher ratios >than other similar products, but even there, the purchase potential is >vastly smaller than that necessary to make the brand viable. > >I could go into a long diatribe on the current condition of the market >(the channel is >really< messed up, even though many of the retailers >are healthy and the consumer base remains enthusiastic), but I won't, >not only because it's a depressing speech, but it is somewhat >proprietary information. I will say that sales on TCGs across the >board are down, that the distributors are unwilling to take any >inventory risk (thus, there is no sales potential) for anything but >the most viable TCG brands, and that the immense amount of unsold >Jyhad/VtES product clogging the channel is a nearly unscalable barrier >to entry for a new VtES release. Even if we printed it, it's >debatable wether we could get anyone to stock it at distribution, or >anyone to order it at retail. > >If all of those issues were addressed, and we had a strong business >case to invest in further VtES work, then there are several second >order issues involving the product that would need to be addressed >internally, not only within FRPG, but within WotC as well before we >moved ahead with that development. In the great scheme of things, I >only have so many dollars, and so many people to allocate to >developing products, and I have to choose those brands that I believe >have the highest percentage chance of returning the most money on that >investment possible. VtES faces >substantial< challenges in that >department as well. > >As always when I discuss VtES, I must stress that I found the game to >be well designed and executed, and that the underlying license from >White Wolf is one of the most well concieved and executed licenses in >the gaming industry. > > >Ryan S. Dancey >Brand Manager, Five Rings Publishing Group >Wizards of the Coast

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > Xian wants facts. Here's a typical Dancey post I've just unearthed > from my archives - full of professional insider detail. It's this > sort of post that made him so interesting to read. The one thing you > won't find in here is any discussion of morality and ethics. > Presumably that's one of the "second-order" issues that he alludes to. Very nice, but he seem to have got part of that wrong. VTES has not died through lack of sales. And I believe that WW is actually making money on the game. Perhaps WoTC simply wanted too much profit. I wonder if VTES will out last Magic before it dies. Time will tell. Raille

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote <snip fascinating read> So... what changed exactly? Why is it viable now? Or... dare I ask *is* it viable now? Cheers, WES

Steve Bucy wrote: > > I'm sure Dancey is a great guy, good player, and asset to the gaming world. > However his statements and actions in relation to VTES during that period > were very destructive to the game. > > Steve Bucy Destructive might be a bit strong worded. :) As Andrew has already pointed out. Unsupportive might be better. Raille

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:51:30 -0400, Wes wrote: >So... what changed exactly? Why is it viable now? >Or... dare I ask *is* it >viable now? WW must have got the costs down. For one thing, they don't have to pay a licence fee to anyone else. They are ramping the game up in a sensibly cautious manner. They started with Sabbat War which was mostly reprints and had a small print run which sold through almost immediately. This was good for encouraging distributors and retailers. Final Nights introduced more new material but I've no idea how much or how well it has sold. Bloodlines is presumably going to be all-new and this is a further bold step. What they'd still have trouble doing is reprinting a new Camarilla base set. One the one hand, there's all that cool art to re-use but on the other, the existing fan base is saturated with product and there's still plenty left in the supply chain. They might encourage retailers to stock that too to help promote the game but there's no direct payoff in it for WW. So Wwat's going to happen after Bloodlines then. Any guesses? My vote is for a Hunter expansion! Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > WW must have got the costs down. For one thing, they don't have to > pay a licence fee to anyone else. WW licenses the deckmaster game mechanic from WotC. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > The useless paper I am refering to is not the cards themselves/what they do. > > My worthless paper is this(as a limited example, please keep that in mind): > > My personal collection of Chimerstry cards from Final Nights(no trading so > > far) > > Amria Common 19 > > Draba Common 19 > > Fata Amria Rare 3 > > Imposing Phantasm Rare 2 > > Mirror Image Common 20 > > Pseudo-Blindness Common 20 > > Reality Common 23 > > Red Herring Common 22 > > Sensory Overload Common 19 > > Shilmulo Deception Common 24 > > Sleight of Hand Rare 4 > > Path of Paradox, The Rare 2 (included to make things even) > > > > My paper problem is the same as why I think things could be different from > > now. So I get about 3 of any rare, and 20 of any common. With only a > > slight change in the rarity scheme things could be a little more equal. > > Notice that there are actually 2 sets of commons per rares. Thats 40 > > commons to 6 rares. Make it there cards from the rare sheet instead of one, > > and I'd average 28 commons to 18 rares. Not too bad( 9 path of paradox to > > 14 red herring) My excess 'paper' is anything really over ten or so cards. > > So I am getting stuck with a bunch of cards I can't use. Sure I probably > > wouldn't use 9 path of paradox either, but if I wanted to at least this way > > I would have the option. White wolf certainly wouldn't have lost any sales > > either. As it stands I bought all the final nights I will. With a rarity > > scheme as above, I would have bougth the same amount. I would just have > > more playable rares and less junk that will not see use.(none of this is > > including the actual cards themselves, just there is nothing I could do with > > 40 of any card, I'd just as soon trade those 10 in for 10 extra twising the > > knife) > > The ratio is more like 7 to 1. That is the rarity in the boosters. > I have to say that you're rarity is skewed for several reasons when > addressing Chimerstry. Chimerstry was a good example, easy to work with, and first alphabeticly. The EXACT same break down happens between any 8 common cards vs any 4 rares.(problem is with general rarity, not with a discipline) > 1)Chimerstry got alot of the common slots, because it is a Final > Nights clan discipline. > 2)Rare slots were for the majority reserved for non-Final Nights > disciplines and cards that help non-Final nights clans and of courses > the rare vampires. So, may I ask you what was your ratio of commons > to rares for protean, or auspex, or obtenebration in your Final Nights > boosters. > 3)Do you really want Chimerstry cards to be rarer in a set that they > release the clan that relies on them? Not at all. I want all cards to be *relativly* less rare actually. > > People that are buying cards just to collect sets(with no intention of > > playing) would probably have an easier time getting the cards they need, > > maybe white wolf would lose something there. Maybe players would buy more > > cards, because they were getting a better deal? Maybe more people would > > play because it wouldn't be seen as burning up your life savings on a single > > game!(always an amazing plus to luring in new players) Maybe decks would be > > more diversified as people would have more equal access to all the > > cards...resulting in improved gameplay? > > I guess you didn't get this from my earlier posts, but I don't give a > shit about collectors who have no interest in playing the game. I > also don't think that they are a marketing target of WW's. I got that from you. I also don't care for collectors(they can do their own whatever, as they aren't using the cards for their intended purpose anyway!) I'm thinking about players, who end up with hordes of extra common cards they couldn't possibly use...and still have to buy more cards to make a deck with 10 fleeching the gaje. Given the choice between 3 of them and 20 of ANY common card....and 9 of them and 12 of any common card...I'm somehow inclined to want less of the same, and more diversity.(again, relativly speaking) > > > The difference between a boxed set and a precon starter is about 80 to > > > 100 cards. Also the purpose of a starter is distinctly different from > > > a prepackaged set. A starter in put together to induce new players > > > into a game. A prepackaged set is for collectors who can now say they > > > have a whole set. Also, Players will more than likely buy more than > > > one precon starter as opposed to a collector who will buy one set and > > > then say," Now, I have one. I don't need to buy anymore." > > > > Not a personal thing, but why is it screw the collector? Seems like they > > are already buying cards with no intention of using them other then to look > > at. Making them buy alot of (possibly cool to use) commons/uncommons just > > for a few rares to complete a set seems kind of mean. Probably turns some > > collectors away, would you think? > > > I think I don't care about those people. I don't think that there is > enough of them to make a difference, or WW would have changed its > marketing to cater to them. > Correct again. So help me out(and the other players) I think that some previous arguments didn't make sense, I wish someone would explane them to me. Mostly I am thinking of those guys that say that having tons of the same common card is good because then you can give away the product you just bought? > > What something is called...what it is...all the same to me. I guess it > > doesn't seem to fit the title "starter deck" as in, 'deck do start you off' > > Maybe it origionally was ment only to 'start you off' It is a big pack of > > cards, with alot of different stuff. It was the only place to get the > > rulebook also. Probably you were only supposed to buy one, and then boost > > your deck with the 'booster packs' And if you have never played VTES it > > would be kinda bad if you went out and got 2 preconstructed starters...say > > assamite and !Brujah. There would be alot of things you would miss out on. > > Random starters pretty much force you to look at a wider mix(not good for > > teaching, but good for trying out new mechanics) > > > They pretty much force you to shelve the product until someone shows > you how to play so that you have an idea what you want so that you can > trade for it. Isn't this what happed to you. Yes, it sucked. I enjoy the precon decks very well(I actually taugh someone to play at origions between rounds!) > > That is what happened in my area, origionally, We got them...looked at > > them. And we were very VERY confused. Needless to say we each put our > > boxes away till someone else learned how to play, then taught us. I never > > played Netrunner, but I believe you.(althought I would ask what makes it so > > easy to play out of the box?) > > because you have two distict roles corperate (defensive) and runner > (offensive) Because you have 2 different roles it's easier to play? Do decks come split up, or do you need to buy one of each? Aaron

In message <9josk...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >So... what changed exactly? Why is it viable now? Or... dare I ask *is* it >viable now? Read the post. Sabbat barely broke even, with a virtual sell-out of the first printing (we know) and the second printing heading that way quickly (we can see). Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:56:26 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:35:19 -0500, Xian wrote: > >>Again, perhaps. I have no facts to back it up, but then again, neither do >>you. :) I've got anecdotal evidence that Sabbat has pretty much always >>been hard to acquire, and sold at or above retail. I'd be interested to >>hear who was finding it for $50 a box, and where they found it. I purchased two boxes for $60 each, about two and a half years ago. I smelled the "run" on Sabbat coming and wanted to get in ahead of it, and sure enough, prices went up to "ludicrous". >The Lasombra has kindly given us the relevant facts. Here are some >more, courtesy of Ryan S. Dancey: > >>I won't use real numbers (they're a company secret). But imagine if >>Jyhad sales were $50. VtES sales were $10. The expansions were $9, >>$5, and $4. >>What does that trend tell you? > >It's these cold, hard numbers which determined Dancey's policy towards >VTES, not his opinion that vampires are evil. Then he should have been using those numbers and ONLY those numbers, and not spouting off the way he did. It's very unprofessional of him to even REFER to his personal views when speaking "ex cathedra" -- and also unnecessary. When you have the weight of sales figures behind you, there's absolutely no need to go any further. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:36:38 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Then he should have been using those numbers and ONLY those numbers, >and not spouting off the way he did. It's very unprofessional of him >to even REFER to his personal views when speaking "ex cathedra" -- and >also unnecessary. When you have the weight of sales figures behind >you, there's absolutely no need to go any further. That's pretty funny coming from you, Derek. Like you (and me) he talked more than was good for him. But all that stuff about vampires being evil came after folk starting grilling him about FRPG's Standards and Practices (a document that I've not seen and a key part of this historical drama). People put direct questions to him and, unlike a good politician, he gave direct answers. I've always liked folk who speak their mind rather than mealy-mouthed platitudes. Would you really have preferred some bland obfuscation or a dead silence? Andrew

In message <E3E1747314452903.01A3ACDD...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >People put direct questions to him and, >unlike a good politician, he gave direct answers. His inability to exercise some discretion is probably indicative of many good reasons for him to *not* be doing front-line customer-handling. When posting in an official capacity, spouting personal beliefs is rarely a good idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D00544A02CD2007F.89625271...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >WW must have got the costs down. For one thing, they don't have to >pay a licence fee to anyone else. White Wolf pays licensing fees to Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro for the use of Deckmaster concepts. >So Wwat's going to happen after Bloodlines then. Any guesses? My >vote is for a Hunter expansion! A general Renegades thing, perhaps, with non-standard clan/sect combos. Camarilla Tzimisce, Sabbat Ventrue, a wangload of allies of all stripes, focusing on stuff from the Hunter RPG. Maybe even amber-backed allies. gomi -- There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with morons. -- M. Lorton

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:10:44 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:36:38 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Then he should have been using those numbers and ONLY those numbers, >>and not spouting off the way he did. It's very unprofessional of him >>to even REFER to his personal views when speaking "ex cathedra" -- and >>also unnecessary. When you have the weight of sales figures behind >>you, there's absolutely no need to go any further. > >That's pretty funny coming from you, Derek. Like you (and me) he >talked more than was good for him. But all that stuff about vampires Well, this IS my "ex cathedra", since I don't hold any position at all with WW. =) So it seems a bit more appropriate to spout off. Or at least not INappropriate. >being evil came after folk starting grilling him about FRPG's >Standards and Practices (a document that I've not seen and a key part >of this historical drama). People put direct questions to him and, >unlike a good politician, he gave direct answers. I've always liked >folk who speak their mind rather than mealy-mouthed platitudes. Would >you really have preferred some bland obfuscation or a dead silence? (shrug) Well, a good politician would have produced bland obfuscation, and I never like that, you're right. But dead silence is, in fact, often the best response when dealing with a situation you can't or shouldn't speak about -- or simply referring back to your original position on the matter with a statement like "My personal opinions of V:TES aren't relevant; (insert sales figures here)". This is stonewalling in one sense, but people can and will actually respect you for stonewalling, as long as your position is sound. I mean, really, it doesn't take a genius to see that if you say "I think vampires are Bad and Evil" to a bunch of vampire-players, that you're going to get your face shot off. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9josk...@enews3.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Let's see, much less complicated and bureaucratic company, the paper shortage has ended, people who care about the game in charge, hopefully no year long waits between expansions. Yea, I think those things have certainly changed. If Sabbat War had not been profitable I doubt there would have been a reprint of it much less Final Nights. Ken

>>So Wwat's going to happen after Bloodlines then. Any guesses? My >>vote is for a Hunter expansion! Actually if you look it's becoming expensive trying to get ahold of V:TES booster boxes. Granted a box of Starters is cheap, but for how long? Vampire needs a basic set in print, in whichever format White Wolf chooses to follow. Personally, I believe a Booster or Starter box (for a basic set) should be split 50/50 Camarilla/Sabbat with wrappers marking the distinction. Not only would this allow collectors to make purchases toward getting certain cards, but would also assist in creating a consistent Clan War Sealed/Draft environment. Just my 2 francs.. Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:31:44 +0000 (UTC), Gomi no Sensei wrote: >Sabbat Ventrue How would they differ from the antitribu Ventrue? Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm backing Steve on this. Not being fully aware of what else he's done there are 2 facts as to why he's not on my happy list 1. Maligning a product that he is supposed to support in such a way that it upsets the customer. Most anyone can take constructive criticism, Mr. Dancey made inane comments which not only affected his consumers but also damaged the brand name. * Stupid * 2. Rolling Thunder. Interesting idea, which brought about the ruin (or near ruin) of AEG's product line. * Stupid * Why anyone would hire this guy is beyond me as he apparently knows little about marketing or customer service. In fact, he should be required to serve Fries before being allowed to make any more business decisions.. Bernie Bresnahan

In message <9jpequ$9...@dispatch.concentric.net>, Ken shaw <k...@compinnovations.com> writes >Let's see, much less complicated and bureaucratic company, the paper >shortage has ended, people who care about the game in charge, hopefully no >year long waits between expansions. Erm, a wait of a year between expansions is *good*. V:TES is way, way, way too complicated to handle cards every 6 months without proper time for them to be assimilated. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <DF9A85B450F73BE5.78CA8FE2...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Two ways: 1) Different discilpine setup, DOM/FOR/PRE vs. AUS/DOM/FOR. 2) They'd be Sabbat Ventrue, not Ventrue Antitribu. They're entirely different clans, from a game-mechanical perspective. <shrug> Independent Ventrue would be just as 'different' for purposes of a Renegades expansion. Although I'd be wary of opening up Free States Rant to a votomatic clan like Ventrue. Other options for a Renegades-type expansion: Inconnu. These would probably be pretty expensive and have weird specials to represent their withdrawal from greater Kindred society. For some reason, Bloodlines includes clans that are no longer canon, like Kiasyd and Ahrimanes, but does not include Serpents of the Light, at least as far as I'm aware. Bah. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:31:25 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >I mean, really, it doesn't take a genius to see that if you say "I >think vampires are Bad and Evil" to a bunch of vampire-players, that >you're going to get your face shot off. =) Hmm, let's put this to the test. I'm not sure if Steve Wieck is listening to all this but LSJ doesn't miss much. And he pretty much started this thread. So, what's the current official position then? Are vampires evil or not? Or have the garou and hunters got it all wrong? <grin> Andrew

BernieTime wrote: > Why anyone would hire this guy is beyond me as he apparently > knows little about marketing or customer service. > In fact, he should be required to serve Fries before being allowed > to make any more business decisions.. > Bernie, wake up! your an american. The thing here is CEO or Corporate director moves in, burns down the company, generates huge returns on the stock holders, get a Huge raise, then the company become insolvent, Tanks, and he move on to the next big company for a bigger front end payment. Of course if he HAD served fries before making any business decisions, well VTES might have been doing as well as MtG, but Ryan would be out on his ear, and no one would hire him. Raille

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > you really have preferred some bland obfuscation or a dead silence? > I think I would have prefered the dead silence. Raille

>===== Original Message From Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] I clearly did not start this thread. I responded to a request for info. Officially, vampires simply exist. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] It depends on what you mean by out last. If we're talking about total number of expansions or total cards sold, V:tES will never catch up. If we're just talking about which game stops producing cards first, V:tES may have an advantage, since while adolescents eventually grow up and have to spend their own money, the undead are a bit more difficult to destroy (as a market). - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >People put direct questions to him and, > >unlike a good politician, he gave direct answers. > > His inability to exercise some discretion is probably indicative of many > good reasons for him to *not* be doing front-line customer-handling. > > When posting in an official capacity, spouting personal beliefs is > rarely a good idea. I've been anxious for the right moment to offer this, and this looks about as decent an opportunity as any. If anyone missed the Salon.com story on Wizards of the Coast, it is an absolute must read for anyone with any interest in the TCG industry: Death to the Minotaur: How Wizards of the Coast sacrificed its geeky, Gothic, sex-for-all idealism for Pokémon-size profits and Magic moola. First of two parts: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html Part two: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/index.html Cheers, - Jason Bell P.S. If Derek hasn't read the articles, someone reply to this message and include the links.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > > Xian wants facts. Here's a typical Dancey post I've just unearthed > from my archives - full of professional insider detail. It's this > sort of post that made him so interesting to read. The one thing you > won't find in here is any discussion of morality and ethics. > Presumably that's one of the "second-order" issues that he alludes to. ... > The final product, The Sabbat, even though it was > >printed in two batches, was had a huge card count, and had the most > >consumer-unfriendly distribution packout in the entire industry What do you think he meant by "consumer-unfriendly distribution?" He couldn't have been referring to high common-to-rare ratios as being a way to force consumers to buy more cards, could he? - Jason Bell

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8xJ77.267891$lq1.61...@typhoon.austin.rr.com... > Potomac Distribution had Sabbat at $50-65 for over two years in the last > part of the last century. Of course, they were making up for that recently > with their $288 price. (Now sold out again.) Ah, knew we could count on you to provide the facts, Jeff. :) Of course, I suppose that I wasn't looking all that hard at the time, because I didn't have a lot of spare money right around then. Still...does anyone know how much that is above or below wholesale price? I'm guessing it's not that far below wholesale, because IIRC, retail was right around $190 or so? And thanks to Andrew for providing an interesting discussion on the topic. I don't have anything against Dancey personally...I wasn't really paying attention during that period on the newsgroup...too busy with real life, I think. I do think that WotC made some poor decisions regarding the marketing/selling of the product, and it doesn't appear that Dancey actually *helped* any. Whether or not this is his fault...well, I don't really care. I'm happy with the state of the game today, and we probably wouldn't have reached this without him. Hehe. Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey, Derek! Jason wants to pass along some typical, fascinating-to-read but one-sided and overhyped Salon articles. Don't hurt yourself too much extracting the facts. =) (Nothing personal, Jason, but Salon.com often has the usual newsmagazine "hyped to sell" articles, and while this is written by an "insider," it's also quite a "one-sider.") -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote > > For some reason, Bloodlines includes clans that are no longer canon, > like Kiasyd and Ahrimanes, but does not include Serpents of the Light, > at least as far as I'm aware. Bah. Ahrimanes are still 'canon' so to speak but have all gone missing within the World of Darkness 'meta-story'. No explanation has been given why to the best of my knowledge. The Kiasyd are definitely still an active V:tM bloodline, but like the Harbingers of Skulls, True Brujah and Blood Brothers, they are recommended to be played only as NPCs by Storytellers. They're fairly disruptive when played as PCs, though an all-Blood Brother coterie strikes me as pretty neat. The Baali are an active, antagonistic bloodline in the Dark Ages but supposedly extinct in modern V:tM (yeah, right). Show me an ST that hasn't used Baali in the modern day and I'll show you an ST that hasn't run out of ideas :) Gargoyles, Salubri, Samedi and Daughters of Cacophany are all active, known to exist but are still fairly uncommon. All of the 'bloodlines' are rare enough that most modern vampires would probably never have heard of them. And yeah, having some Serpents of the Light and more Ravnos Antritribu might be a good idea. The Ventrue Antitribu have been changed back to the regular clan disciplines, so that combination can be explored (actually has already if you've noticed the !Ven made *since* the Sabbat expansion). Malkavians could be given DEM. More City Gangrel could be made. A few 'Black Hand' Assamite Antitribu might be welcome... There are a lot of options for future expansions really... enough that I'm surprised Bloodlines was chosen before other ideas. Cheers, WES

> Chimerstry was a good example, easy to work with, and first alphabeticly. > The EXACT same break down happens between any 8 common cards vs any 4 > rares.(problem is with general rarity, not with a discipline) > I really can't help you there. I don't control how they pack boosters, nor have I ever. I am just happy that the game is reprinted. > Not at all. I want all cards to be *relativly* less rare actually. see above . I also don't care for collectors(they can do their own > whatever, as they aren't using the cards for their intended purpose anyway!) > I'm thinking about players, who end up with hordes of extra common cards > they couldn't possibly use...and still have to buy more cards to make a deck > with 10 fleeching the gaje. Given the choice between 3 of them and 20 of > ANY common card....and 9 of them and 12 of any common card...I'm somehow > inclined to want less of the same, and more diversity.(again, relativly > speaking) kind of like a cryptic mission deck? > Correct again. So help me out(and the other players) I think that some > previous arguments didn't make sense, I wish someone would explane them to > me. Mostly I am thinking of those guys that say that having tons of the > same common card is good because then you can give away the product you just > bought? You probably have tons of the commons because you bought tons of cards. Does this sound right? . Needless to say we each put our > > > boxes away till someone else learned how to play, then taught us. I > never > > > played Netrunner, but I believe you.(althought I would ask what makes it > so > > > easy to play out of the box?) > > > > because you have two distict roles corperate (defensive) and runner > > (offensive) > > Because you have 2 different roles it's easier to play? Do decks come split > up, or do you need to buy one of each? it is easier because you can focus on specific aspects of the game, and not the entire thing. Jyhad/VTES random starters requires you to take in ever aspect of the game at once, where as precons allow you to focus on some things and eliminate some things (for example , the !Brujah starter allowed you to focus on combat and equipment, without worrying about transient stealth and transient intercept). Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>> Death to the Minotaur: >> How Wizards of the Coast sacrificed its geeky, Gothic, sex-for-all >> idealism for Pokémon-size profits and Magic moola. >> First of two parts: >> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html >> Part two: >> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/index.html >> >> Cheers, >> >> - Jason Bell >> >> P.S. If Derek hasn't read the articles, someone reply to this message >> and include the links. > > Hey, Derek! Jason wants to pass along some typical, fascinating-to-read >but one-sided and overhyped Salon articles. Don't hurt yourself too much >extracting the facts. =) > > (Nothing personal, Jason, but Salon.com often has the usual newsmagazine >"hyped to sell" articles, and while this is written by an "insider," it's >also quite a "one-sider.") > >-- >Pat Ricochet >Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta Maybe so, but I found it an interesting/entertaining read anyhow.. Way better than the Clan Giovanni novel.. Bernie Bresnahan Prince o' Lansing My Brother's Keeper (he's in the cellar!)..

LSJ wrote in message <3B6D...@MailAndNews.com>... >>===== Original Message From Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> ===== >>On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:31:25 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >> >>>I mean, really, it doesn't take a genius to see that if you say "I >>>think vampires are Bad and Evil" to a bunch of vampire-players, that >>>you're going to get your face shot off. =) >> >>Hmm, let's put this to the test. I'm not sure if Steve Wieck is >>listening to all this but LSJ doesn't miss much. And he pretty much >>started this thread. So, what's the current official position then? >>Are vampires evil or not? Or have the garou and hunters got it all >>wrong? <grin> > >I clearly did not start this thread. >I responded to a request for info. > >Officially, vampires simply exist. WHAT!!! AAAAHHHHH!!!! I thought this was all just fun and games... vampires really exist! ARRRGHHHH!!!! I would have never believed it if LSJ hadn't officially said so. I need to go find a safe place before sundown! :-P Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:34:55 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >Jason Bell actually wrote: >> I've been anxious for the right moment to offer this, and this >> looks about as decent an opportunity as any. >> If anyone missed the Salon.com story on Wizards of the Coast, >> it is an absolute must read for anyone with any interest in the >> TCG industry: >> >> Death to the Minotaur: >> How Wizards of the Coast sacrificed its geeky, Gothic, sex-for-all >> idealism for Pokémon-size profits and Magic moola. >> First of two parts: >> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html >> Part two: >> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/index.html >> >> - Jason Bell >> >> P.S. If Derek hasn't read the articles, someone reply to this message >> and include the links. > > Hey, Derek! Jason wants to pass along some typical, fascinating-to-read >but one-sided and overhyped Salon articles. Don't hurt yourself too much >extracting the facts. =) Heh. Actually, it was fairly entertaining, after all that. I suppose most of it is actually true, but I'm not too worried about that. I wonder why it was so important that I read it, though? =) > (Nothing personal, Jason, but Salon.com often has the usual newsmagazine >"hyped to sell" articles, and while this is written by an "insider," it's >also quite a "one-sider.") It reads more like a Shakespearean tragedy about how one man gained a vision, won the acclaim of millions, lost his dreams, and had everything go against him in the end. Except nobody dies, and the protagonist actually ends up not so badly off. Pretty good, for fluff. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> > > Death to the Minotaur: > > How Wizards of the Coast sacrificed its geeky, Gothic, sex-for-all > > idealism for Pokémon-size profits and Magic moola. > > First of two parts: > > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html > > Part two: > > http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/26/wizards_part2/index.html > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Jason Bell > > > > P.S. If Derek hasn't read the articles, someone reply to this message > > and include the links. > > Hey, Derek! Jason wants to pass along some typical, fascinating-to-read > but one-sided and overhyped Salon articles. Don't hurt yourself too much > extracting the facts. =) > > (Nothing personal, Jason, but Salon.com often has the usual newsmagazine > "hyped to sell" articles, and while this is written by an "insider," it's > also quite a "one-sider.") What an odd perspective. This article wasn't hyped as far as I know when it arrived at Salon, and if I hadn't stumbled onto it when Part 2 was up (not on the front page), I would have missed it altogether, and I read Salon regularly. And I have no idea what "hyped to sell" means, since that article is not part of their premium subscription-only content. Similarly, it is almost redundant to describe an author's first person recollection of events as he saw them as one-sided. I would be fascinated to know which of Tynes' accounts or claims you found to be inaccurate. - Jason Bell

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:IJ087.384$%Z2.2...@news.uswest.net... > > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8xJ77.267891$lq1.61...@typhoon.austin.rr.com... > > Potomac Distribution had Sabbat at $50-65 for over two years in the > last > > part of the last century. Of course, they were making up for that > recently > > with their $288 price. (Now sold out again.) > > Ah, knew we could count on you to provide the facts, Jeff. :) > > Of course, I suppose that I wasn't looking all that hard at the time, > because I didn't have a lot of spare money right around then. > Still...does anyone know how much that is above or below wholesale > price? I'm guessing it's not that far below wholesale, because IIRC, > retail was right around $190 or so? Right around US$100. I paid US$108 for both of my first two boxes the day Sabbat came out when I was living in Seattle. I bought the next 2 at 20% off. I bought about 15 from Potomac over the next three years. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Pat Ricochet wrote: > (I wrote:) > > Trading R2s for R1s given the distribution of R2s > > and R1s in Final Nights should normally be an expensive proposition, unless > > you're a fantastic trader and/or luck into an excellent deal (for you, at > > least). Expect to get 2-3 R1s in a single box or 5-6 in two boxes - though > > from everything I've heard, you can easily get shut out of R1s in a single box > > and as few as one or two in any two boxes. > > I got 6 in 2 boxes. I've traded away 1 for 1, and traded away 1 of them > for 2 R2's (Shroud Masteries, not Smoke Grenades). > From what I've heard, getting 5-6 in two boxes is quite normal. I've > certainly heard beefs of not getting all 8 R1's in 3 or 4 boxes. > > > So I don't think can say that it necessarily works to view trading as a > > fallback to buying lots and lots of packs. > > Beat of a leap there, you may have lost me; Are you saying "If I want > R1's, I have to have R1's to trade for them, R2's won't do, and I could get > screwed on the numbers of R1's I get with even two whole boxes?" Yes, correct. > If so, ok. I will point out that I traded away an R1 for 2 R2's, kind > of the proof that you can get R1's you want without R1's to trade. Anecdotal proof. My experience is that by and large, it doesn't happen much. I am curious to hear if other people strongly disagree with my observation. One caveat though: I'm talking about expansions where the R1s are rare and R2s are most of the rare sheet, like Final Nights. Jyhad is not the same situation, since having most packs contain R1s means that people don't get sensitive and possessive about them. > > Maybe it could be but you still have to get lucky to do it. > Again, I might be losing you. Is this still "lucky" getting enough R1's > that I "require" in order to get R1's? Yes. Or else finding a guy like you who doesn't care about his R1s and wants to trade them for R2s I have in abundance. Before someone else does. > > And some of us really don't have a huge pool of > > local folks to trade with. Great - now I have to trust the people I find on > > the net... > > I do maybe 10% of my trading with my local group, maybe less. I've > completed some 20 or so online trades since "catching the bug," and haven't > been burned yet. It's not like I'm out there in a high-demand forum > attracting predatory frauders. Also, there are some excellent sites > (Succubus Club, Communal Haven) and this newsgroup to find trades with > people, where it's even to get trading references. (One usually starts with > people you're sure you can trust on the newsgroup, or better yet, people you > met at tournaments, and who you know you'll see again.) I've done it a few times over the net and never been burned. It's just not something I'm comfortable with. As for tournaments, same problem as local folks. Outside of the local area (and I'm including everything in the state of Arizona, here), the nearest tournaments are Las Vegas and Los Angeles, both half-day drives, assuming a benevolent attitude on the part of intervening State Trooper units. > And if you just want to buy 2 or 3 boxes of cards and have all the cards > you could ever need, no more and no less, and you don't like to trade, then > I can certainly see you being annoyed. > I just enjoy the trading, and have found it to be easy, painless, safe > and reliable, with the added benefit of getting to interact and see a bit > more of the V:TES community across the USA and the whole world. Unfortunately, that's easier done on the east coast, near other active VtES areas, than out west in places like this. (I do still have my Bay Area contacts, who I'd trust to trade with without a thought. But they haven't turned up any deals this time around, in part because Final Nights is just harder to trade for due exactly to this reason, IMO.) Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:$$RPiDZEC...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9jpequ$9...@dispatch.concentric.net>, Ken shaw > <k...@compinnovations.com> writes > >Let's see, much less complicated and bureaucratic company, the paper > >shortage has ended, people who care about the game in charge, hopefully no > >year long waits between expansions. > > Erm, a wait of a year between expansions is *good*. > I was specifically talking about the wait between Jyhad and Dark Sovereigns. It was far more than a year and at least for many of my friends who played early it was frustrating to not get any new cards for so long. > V:TES is way, way, way too complicated to handle cards every 6 months > without proper time for them to be assimilated. > Ken

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, "hyped to sell" may be a bit of misnomer, compared to subscription services, but there are banner ads on top, so catching eyeballs is the goal. (Really, some marketing guys still believe this; try to not laugh too much. =) However, you can't go wrong with "sex-for-all idealism" to catch eyes. Not to mention making a large chunk of the article on that topic, but that makes it a bit less of an "absolute must read for anyone with any interest in the TCG industry." > Similarly, it is almost redundant to describe an author's first person > recollection of events as he saw them as one-sided. But it's not redundant when you haven't yet *read* the articles; it's descriptive. I was pointing out to Derek (and others), the would-be reader, that while it does make good reading, it sure ain't journalism. > I would be fascinated to know which of Tynes' accounts or claims > you found to be inaccurate. Depends by what you mean by inaccurate. I don't think he said any falsehoods, if that's what you mean. But the whole thing is such an emotional diatribe, that while good reading, makes me feel no more educated as to the "birth" or "death" of WotC, or really any feel at all for the TCG industry in general; which is how I mistook your billing of it. Poorly met, incorrect expectations, I guess. <shrug> [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > <snip> > > > > > He did a good job on Lo5R, for sure. > > > > Not all L5R players share this opinion. It's a relative thing and a > > long story, so we'll leave it at that. > > Perhaps i'm confused here, but didn't Dancey's company INVENT Lo5R? If > not, i completely withdraw my remark, which really meant kudos to > whoever came up with lo5R - not my cup of tea gamewise, but obviously > a non-wizards non-proprietary CCG that actualy works for some people. FRPG -- Five Rings Publishing Group -- was L5R's original home (a collaboration between Alderac and damn-I-forget). The execution of L5R's design has caused their initial fan-based to become alienated in the last few years. Basically, the basic problems of design the game has have mostly gotten worse instead of improving, though there was vast room for the design to take a different direction. An example: this is a 3 CL game; when you make, in a later-day expansion, three more cards that do the same basic thing as the basic set version of a powerful card, you've strengthened the deck archetypes that were based around that card immesurably. We've seem some archetypes grow stronger since they heyday of Imperial Edition (the first set) while others have languished. For several years. Despite player support. And that's without details for brevity's sake. Plus, I rant enough as it is. > > I didn't know there was another NetRunner expansion. Or maybe I did > > and I'm confusing it -- there was only one expansion, yes? > > No, two - Proteus which was widely panned for containing some absurd > cards [eg rent-to-own contract and moveable Ice], and Classic aka > Silent Impact Lite, which is the one they brught out while Dancey was > in charge. i liked Classic a lot. But the truth is that NR works best > in sealed-deck format. I'm remembering now. What does NR have going for it in constructed? Is the Runner or Corp too strong in such a format? > <snip> > > > > > > > > Some folk suggested that a Hunter/Slayer expansion would be a good way > > > > of addressing this but he didn't go for it - said that he expected > > > > that existing fans would be hostile. It's a shame he didn't give this > > > > a try as I would probably have liked it. > > > > > > i would like to see this, too, and so would Sarah i'm sure. i know it > > > sounds funny but we really, REALLY don't like vampires. > > > > What's to like? They're immortal monsters who need to be destroyed for > > the sake of humanity. Some of the clans are neat, though, in concept. Erm, to clarify: though I will knock it on many counts, there are many core ideas and clans in VtM that I do like -- though I edit them ruthlessly for my games (and prefer VtDA vastly, due to better writing). > > > > > > > Was the Wyrm expansion for > > > > Rage a success? Did players like playing the opposition? > > > > > > Opinions differ about that. Most of the Rage players i know LOVED it > > > but as another poster remarks further down this was not a universal > > > feeling. Not controversial is that the Wyrm had the best foil in Count > > > Vladimir Rustovich and the worst foil in Churjoroc's tusk. > > > > Not controversial? Then why did you bring it up? Did you mean that it > > was not _un_controversial? > > Er, no, i just thought that point about the foils was the only thing > that everyone agreed on about the Wyrm expansion. Ah. My friends and I, who still had dying hopes that the game could be made playable, thought the thing to "agree upon" was the new factions one could play. We didn't give a rat's about foils. In fact, chase cards annoyed us, though less than in other games -- Rage had so many "play this and win" cards that we couldn't keep up with all the power cards. > > Oh, how I loved Churjoc's Tusk! It represented almost everything that > > was wrong with Rage! For those not in the know: > > > > The Tusk is an ultra-rare foil card. It allows you to kill off the > > powerful Black Spiral Dancer character that holds it (it has a high > > Gnosis requirement, meaning the holder is probably significant). So > > you're down a peep -- a good one. But wait, there's more. You can go > > through your deck and grab a Nexus Crawler, the most powerful Enemy in > > the game, to join your pack -- for three turns, after which he goes > > away, too. So it's a minor gain, net. > > > > But wait, the Nexus Crawler is a rare card thats obscenely hard to > > get. From a previous set. > > > > And, though the Nexus Crawler is fearsome, many basic commons > > (Nightmare Coin, etc.) allowed you to escape him. > > > Didn't there have to be a Full Moon in play, too, for the card to come > off? *chortle* Oops, yes, almost forgot. There had to be a Full Moon in play. Add one more card to the combo. And one more point of vulnerability. When you play a new Moon card, the old one is knocked out immediately. So someone could knock out your Moon as soon as they see the Tusk. Which leads to the timing problems Legbiter mentioned before. Hilarious. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************** Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter, since nobody listens.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<57D486D29D634398.BFF53697...@lp.airnews.net>... > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:34:05 -0400, Wes wrote: > > >I always hate coming across as the ignorant one, but what the hell is > >Rolling Thunder? I thought you were referring to a game at first, but it > >sounds more like a distribution concept of some kind? <snip> > I think it mainly didn't work because a player wouldn't want to buy a > whole box unless he could split it with someone and you needed about 8 > players to soak up a big combo box. If the retail order unit had been > smaller, it might have worked better. > > Andrew Actually, the Powers That Be submitted a post that said one of its major problems was in distributing: the stores had no idea what to order. Thus, they ordered lots and lots of the first Scroll or edition of a given game, but didn't realize that the next Scrolls or editions were different products. This resulted in a glut of the earlier product and a shortage of the later, which led to huge amounts of cards sitting on shelves -- which stores hate. Things rolled downhill from there. (E.g., other bad things happen I don't remember clearly enough to explain without digging up old references.) I do know that my experience with it was actually good. The small sets did allow me, as a player who budgeted little cash for games, to get the cards I wanted. -- Lemar Johnson ******************************************************************* Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics. -- Fletcher Knebel

In message <efec83a3.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lemar Johnson <mournfor...@hotmail.com> writes >I'm remembering now. > >What does NR have going for it in constructed? Is the Runner or Corp >too strong in such a format? From stuff I heard (I never played NR), it seemed to be the case that the Corp could solidify its defences more than the Runner could advance its attacks, rather than progressing at roughly the same rate, once you had the ability to construct your own decks, using multiples of cards etc. This seemed to be the vibe I was getting around Proteus. Classic may have helped, I don't know. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.0107...@posting.google.com>... > > Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote: > > The terms used contradict since, within the industry, the terms > > themselves are used casually and interchangeably. > > How does the interchangeability and casualty of two terms' usage > establish a contradiction? Only within the context of some of the posts in this thread which imply that the use of collectable and trading would suggest different marketing procedures, procedures which many people thought significant to their arguments here. The differences (that these procedures would or could create) to the Powers That Be may or may not be negligible, but it is a point of contention for those in this forum. Whether it's a terribly significant point of contention remains to be seen, but people on the net (us) will debate for debating's sake, so it doesn't matter much. > > We do not use them casually, here, because they would make this > > thread even more ambiguous. > > Would you care to support that satement? There was no support needed for the satement. None needed for the statement, either. It wasn't a contention, but an observation. If we (within this thread) used them casually (interchangeably, as the full text of my previous post described) we would become confused. > I made that statement that VTES is a collectable card game. My > statement is supporeted by the facts that WotC and WW both have > marketed VTES as "collectable" and there are collectors that acquire > VTES cards only to complete a set, rather than play the game. It is > advertised as being collectable and people collect it, therefore it is > a CCG. It is not supported as a primarily collectable item. Where are the carrying cases and ultra-rares? To forgo what's been said before, White Wolf indicates that it believes the health of the IP is directly and most strongly linked to the playability of the game itself and very much less so to its ability to be hoarded into sets. We thus treat it as a game that can be collected. > In addition, People trade to complete collections or deck desings and > it is marketed as tradeable, therefore it is a TCG. > > Therefore, my original statement that VTES is both a CCG and a CCG is > correct. > How is that ambiguous in any way? Well, for one you used "CCG" twice above. You misunderstood me. I did not say you were being ambiguous, or anyone else in the thread. I said WotC and WW's use of the terms were ambiguous and, for them, functionally interchangeable -- at least, for WW (WotC may have issues with it). The context of my reply when I used the term ambiguous was that of the parent companies' usage of the term. > More importantly, how does not > taking into consideration all aspects of a product's usage and > marketing further obscure this thread, except to refute claims made by > those on one side of the issue? This argument stems from the misunderstanding described above, which is unfortunate, because cutely-loaded arguments are fun to meet. > > The issue at hand was whether or not White Wolf markets > > VtES game components as collectible pieces, primarily, or whether the > > emphasis on was their use as game components. > > No, the issue was whether White Wolf could ignore the importance of > the collectability of VTES in the secondary market and the impact it > has on the profitability of the product. Nope, I was right the first time. Note that I originally discussed the utility and gain from printing fixed sets of cards for Jyhad. The only reason I entered the discussion was because the very hypothetical possibility was bandied about. I believe such printings would add to the quality of the game. The primary emphasis of VtES as a collector's item or a game is thus a significant issue to me -- and was a point in my earlier post. If VtES is a game, first, then its success would be linked to its success as a game. I then sought to show that the existence of sets does not necessarily undermine the value of boosters or harm the secondary market (and other posts from people from various sides of the issue have pointed out that the secondary market's fortunes do not directly benefit the parent company of the game, if at all). At no point did I suggest WW "ignore the importance of the collectability of VtES" or challenge its collectability. In fact, I pointed out that the creation of boxed sets with cards in formats varying from the mixed boosters preserves the collectability of the original, random set. Thus, whether or not WW markets VtES as a collectable card game or not is less significant to me than any of these other issues as I have no doubt that the fortunes of this game depend upon its appreciation as a game -- and have no doubt WW believes the same. I find that WW concentrates upon the play-aspect of Jyhad more than any other aspect within its design, thus leading me to believe that they market it as a game first. But even if I was wrong, the contention that Jyhad's fortune is based on its enjoyment when played is strong contention as far as I'm concerned, making it a moot issue: if Jyhad stops being fun to play, the product dies. If WW has been marketing this game as a collector's item primarily and has been inexplicably generous with the game-aspect of it up to this point but then, at some future time, places its emphasis back to its collectable aspect rather than upon play, they will kill their sales. (And because I do believe WW to be a bit more attentive to profit than that, I hold that they do, indeed, consider this a game first.) >Clearly, the game design > itself has an emphasis on the game function, the distribution of cards > in booster packs has an emphasis on establishing its collectability > and marketing attempts to balance both goals. Again, there is no > ambiguity. Again, this line of thought is corrected above. > > (And note that this was a minor issue indeed in my previous post; > > From your post: > > > No WoTC TCG is marketed as a CCG. > > In addition, as we have already mentioned, VtES is not marketed as > > presenting a collectable set. > > > Um, again, VtES isn't marked as collectable, ever. > > Minor, my ass. Why is it that when somebody makes a statement > repeatedly and then it is refuted, they write it off as "minor"? Why is it that when someone has their statements refuted they turn to cursing? The argument pertaining to the marketing of Jyhad, as described above, is, again, ancillary to the argument pertaining to the benefit of printing sets. It is, indeed, minor; the argument about the viability of constructed sets does not depend upon the contention pertaining to VtES being first a collection or a game, but the argument about sets is supported by the contention that VtES is a game first. > > I have not seen White Wolf cater specifically to collectors in any concise, > > meaningful way since their acquisition of VtES; > > Their repeated use of the word "collectable" in multiple places, > including a press release, suggests that they aren't ignoring > collectors either. The above statement does not contradict my argument. The use of the phrase has been already described as a convenience. I was discussing whether or not the game had its collectability emphasized or its play-value emphasized. > > I have not seen significant on-line support from the parent company for > > VtES collection by collectors, > > That is because, by fair use laws, companies are normally prohibited > from influencing the cost of copyrighted products in the secondary > market. However, EULA contracts, such as that on software and concert > tickets, usually take precendence. In this instance, VTES has no such > EULA so normal laws apply. This would not prohibit the parent company from providing checklists within starters, selling card-books, etc. -- other spin-offs that collectors could find use for. I did not describe market manipulation -- you argue against a contention I never made. Put simply, I find that the absence of literature on the net and within VtES products to encourage the collection of sets (instead of encouraging play -- there is plenty of the latter) does not support the idea that VtES is primarily marketed as a collectable set of pieces. > > I was not arrogant in my post; it seems you have done your best to > > paint me as such so you yourself could come off as arrogant. > > And no, I was not arrogant in this post, either. I was disparaging. > > dis·par·age (di-sparij) tr.v. 1.To speak of in a slighting or > disrespectful way; belittle. > > Explain to me the practical difference between being arrogant and > being belittling? Ah. You have taken it upon yourself to selectively delete portions of my post which would undermine your rant. Do not worry -- it is a common accident. I will reprint what I originally wrote to add clarity to the following discussion: "And no, I was not arrogant in this post, either. I was disparaging. I do not think myself better than the person who responded, but I did find his attitude leaving much to be desired (though I am certain that he is, in fact, a decent human being of course). I specifically picked nits in what I found to be a rant by a person who was acting out in a verbally-abusive manner. I would much rather have my person attacked after I have transgressed. As the order has been upturned, I thought it best to rectify the situation by transgressing now." As I said before, I found the attitude to leave much to be desired. Thus, I acted in a disparaging way towards the substance of the post and towards the temperament it suggested, which I feel I was well within my rights to do -- the originator had attacked me verbally, without provocation, and I responded in kind, but went no further. To be sure of the issue, let us parallel the actions of our peer here and define arrogant: (ar'u-gunt), —adj. 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official. 2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims. As my claims are well-founded and I do not claim, in any way, to be of higher status than the one who attacked me in the first place, I am indeed free from this label. In addition, it is more than possible, from the definition given by the one I reply to here, to be disparaging of an institution, an e-mail, or even a verbal stance or attitude. None of this requires one to be disparaging of one or more individuals associated with such. > Translation: You were being a fuck nut and when I ran rough shod over > you for it, you cried foul. Cry a river all you like, jackass. I don't > give a fuck. You got what you deserved. Again, you misrepresent me -- but at least we are being consistent. I did not cry foul, though I did point out your arguments lacked merit (which may well be the source of this resentment that causes you to curse -- but that is supposition). And if you didn't "give a fuck", why have you read thus far in this and other posts which not only disagree with you but question the character you display upon the net? Your continued attendance to this lists betrays concern. As to the supposition that I was "being a fuck nut," note that I claimed all along that you began the attacks (with selective editing and hostile comments). This would suggest you sought to instigate an issue. If you thought I was "being a fuck nut," and were honestly distressed by it, it would have behooved you to point out where I insulted you such that your following insults and defamations would be somewhat justified. The lack of such revelations does not seem to suggest an oversight on your part but a lack of righteous basis -- that is, you did not seek to suggest exactly why you were in the right because you are clearly in the wrong. This is supposition -- you could, indeed, have simply missed said opportunity. But, still, you make no attempt to show that you are not, indeed, "being a fuck nut." Whatever you want that to mean. > > My advice: find something, outside of these postings, to take pride in. > > If your ego is too fragile to handle disagreement, > > That advice, like all the rest of your statements thus far, is worth > the paper it's printed on. My ego is far from fragile and I can not > only handle constructive, informed disagreement, I revel in it. When > you can provide such, I'll be happy to debate it on its merits. I have, and you haven't -- but this won't get us very far, I know, as I have already seen you disparage the arguments and persons of others besides myself in this thread without responding in a constructive manner -- when they themselves were constructive. > Which brings me to this: > > > Next time you post, please have enough self-respect to spell-check > > your shoddy work. An "argument," indeed. > > The last gasp of a person who is losing an argument, and desperately > wants to win at all costs, is almost always a flame about misspellings > and typos. Ah, Jason replied here accurately. And do note: I explained my nitpicks clearly, and they had nothing to do with the arguments, but with the attack upon my person. Selective editing once again. And, if we accomplish nothing else, I am very proud of the fact that you now spell "argument" correctly. Though there may be bitterness in you, I know that we have made a step forward in one aspect. >I find it amusing that when people do so, they invariably > misspell something as well. The reason I find it amusing is that, > instead of coming off as an intelligent, yet condescending, disputant, > they come off as an obnoxious ass clown. Did you mean to use the term "ass clown" as one phrase? I've never heard of one, though it does give rise to a mental image that is a little amusing but extremely unhygenic. I think you originally intended for "ass" to be a modifier of "obnoxious", requiring a hyphen as shown: "obnoxious-ass clown" This seems to reach your meaning more clearly. >For future reference, "spell > check" is not a hyphenated word. > > Noal Actually, it's not a word. It's a phrase. And it's a hyphenated phrase, though many machines vary about their presentation of the term now that the feature has become popular. Like many things in the English language, it can be used either way. It is clear that the previous respondent feels no wrongdoing on his part for his attacks, and it is clear that we will not agree upon the nature of such. Thus, I will refrain from responses to the posts of that person (though I will not dismiss them) as non-abusive responses to my own are not forthcoming. However, I do still feel that such abuse indicates a lack upon that person's part (though this is supposition), so I think it best to satisfy that need. Though I suggested hobbies before, and think those still good suggestions, in the interim to the acquisition of such activities I offer the last word. By all means, respond to this post in a scathing manner, replete with disparaging comments, to which I will be mute. This will, no doubt, be a source of satisfaction. Despite the attacks, there was still the intermittent reasoned response and I am grateful for any vestige of rational conversation. Though we may not have been successful, I do wish you good health in your quest to converse with others here and a good, malicious rant to come. -- Lemar Johnson ************************************************************************ I teleported home one night with Ron and Sue and Peg; Ron stole Suzie's heart away and I got Peggie's leg. -- "The (Anti-) Teleportation Song," Douglas Adams

IMO: Sabbat, Settites, Giovanni: evil Ravnos: who knows Camarilla, Assamites: ok, as far a vampires go (hardly good, but not evil). of course individual vampires in any clan/sect may be good/evil. This is just a generalization. [ quoted text not captured ]

> For some reason, Bloodlines includes clans that are no longer canon, > like Kiasyd and Ahrimanes, but does not include Serpents of the Light, > at least as far as I'm aware. Bah. Kiasyd are canon -- they are located in the Sabbat Players Guide. The Ahrimanes weren't unwritten, they just disappeared. They may or may not still be alive (discussed in the Gangrel Clanbook) Fanboy

> What does NR have going for it in constructed? Is the Runner or Corp > too strong in such a format? I only participated in one NR constructed event, but the problem was a common one for early CCGs: Homogeneity. Every Corp deck I ran against had the same ICE, defended the same Nodes, installed the same Upgrades, etc. Every Runner deck that went against me used the same programs, etc. All the decks were identical to my own. Deck construction was not a factor in the tournament, and it felt like we were playing in a sealed event, anyway. The winner won through a combintation of skill and luck on the run/defend. NOt by building a superior deck. Fanboy

> Sabbat, Settites, Giovanni: evil > Ravnos: who knows > Camarilla, Assamites: ok, as far a vampires go (hardly good, but not > evil). Gross oversimplification. Giovanni: Destructive -- their goal is to take over the world by tearing down the shroud between our world and the land of the dead. As they have the majority of the Necromantic powers in the world, they'd be able to rise up and eliminate the problem, thus giving them a global powerbase surpassing all other forces. Setites: Evil. They seek to revive a dead God, block out the sun for all eternity, and create a world in which vampires rule without fear of their one achille's heel, all the while driving other vampires further into depravity, giving them control over them. Sabbat: By our predominately Judeo-Christian morality, undeniably evil. By their own mindset -- justified. They fight a holy war against an opponent who serves, in their own mind, the single most powerful destructive beings in the world (Antedeluvians). They revel in their inhumane nature initially to undermine the Masquerade in Camarilla cities, as that creates addtional hardship for their enemy. As with the Critter: The End series of games, this tactic becomes habit, and they inevitably spiral downward (upward?) into their approach to their new existence. Sabbat does a great job of displaying the grey areas of morality. Ravnos: Grossly self-serving. They exist to protect their living family, which is a noble cause, but they do this because they have an unfounded belief that their family has THE pivotal role in some undescribed future event. The generally despise all the other vampires because those vampires have been behind various anti-Romani programs over the past several centuries. Of course, the Ravnos have been the most inconsisent clan developed by the tabletop books, because each new line developer for V:TM seems to want to take them in a different direction (up to and including Out of the Game, with the Week of Nightmares of two years back). Camarilla: Self-serving. They wish to retain their powerbase and not die. They will eliminate anything that threatens the powerbase or survival, including Sabbat, independents, whatever. Assamites: The most noble of the lot -- they feel other vampires (ALL vampires) are a blight upon the earth, and seek to destroy them. It is, however, the very nature of vampiric existence that it is inherently harmful to their food source -- if they kill their prey, they endanger themselves but grant mercy to thier prey. If they leave the prey alive, and distort their emotions/perceptions/condition etc, they maintain their survival, but generally leave a traumatized individual, who returns to his/her family a fraction of what they were before, and start a spread of emotional decay. Fanboy

In message <3B6309AE...@pacbell.net>, Brad <Bra...@pacbell.net> writes >of course individual vampires in any clan/sect may be good/evil. I'd suggest that top-posters who don't snip any of the post they are replying to could be considered evil. semi-colon dash bracket etc. [ quoted text not captured ]