Camarilla Edition

WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001. "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck. "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle." The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in the boosters) and several new library cards. In addition, six pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started quickly. The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle fans throughout the world lauded the return of their favorite card game in October 2000 when Sabbat War marked the first new release since 1996. Sabbat War has since sold through two entire print runs, and the subsequent Final Nights expansion has nearly sold out its initial print run as well. Look for Bloodlines in stores now and The Camarilla Edition in August 2002. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle's Final Nights is available in limited quantities through some distributors and retail outlets. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > the boosters) Good move! Thank you for considering the older players too. > and several new library cards. In addition, six > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > quickly. Sealed deck tournaments just got more interesting. Thank you again. > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Arrrrgh! This is gonna hurt my pocketbook. But with a name like that, who can argue? I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs and a few non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include Lasombra Antitribu, Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!) and probably a few other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu, Assamite Antitribu, Serpents of the Light, Warrior Setites (SER PRE POT!) and a lot of Panders. Additionally, the Gangrel have a few variants as well. There's a Central American offshoot that has ANI FOR SER (I think) and the aquatic Gangrel which are like creatures from the black lagoon or something like that. Kind of silly but I think they have the same disciplines... I'm all giddy I tell you! Cheers, WES

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com... > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > So if i read correctly , they will be no re-print , is that correct ? I only have one thing to say : WOW ! And about the Anarchs : WOW ! ML

"Martin Laganičre" <Megatro...@decepticons.com> wrote in message news:Y%%u8.7187$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com... > > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > > > > So if i read correctly , they will be no re-print , is that correct ? Well, it sounds to me like "several new library cards" out of a set of 300 implies that there *will* be reprints, and I'd guess that it also means the majority of the library cards will be reprints. > I only have one thing to say : WOW ! And about the Anarchs : WOW ! I entirely agree. Tres cool. Josh the anarchs are revolting!

> > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) > > Good move! Thank you for considering the older players too. Hope the cards everyone needs from the previous editions will be included (I'd understand it if some cards present in both VTES and Sabbat War weren't printed again, but only if SW sees reprints...). > > and several new library cards. In addition, six > > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get > started > > quickly. Good !! I thought it would be only 4, as "usual". What motivated this choice, as opposed to SW (LSJ ?). > Sealed deck tournaments just got more interesting. Thank you again. > > > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. > > Arrrrgh! This is gonna hurt my pocketbook. But with a name like that, who > can argue? Hum, depends what's in it... > I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs It would be very nice to see it include Caïtiff "makeshift disciplines" ; some thin blooded, too (can play Daring the Dawn without taking aggravated...). and a few > non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include > Lasombra Antitribu, Maybe in the Cam set ? Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!) and probably a few > other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu, Assamite Antitribu, > Serpents of the Light, Warrior Setites (SER PRE POT!) and a lot of Panders. No more Setites !!! They already rule. I'd like to see some new discipline cards for the independent disciplines, though (mainly Necro of course...), and maybe some split disciplines including Bloodlines disciplines (by then WW will have seen which ones need to be improved) ? And I'd LOVE to see one more guy with Dom / Obt / Nec... > Additionally, the Gangrel have a few variants as well. There's a Central > American offshoot that has ANI FOR SER (I think) and the aquatic Gangrel > which are like creatures from the black lagoon or something like that. Kind > of silly but I think they have the same disciplines... NO, NOT THEM !!!! They ARE silly, it's really the one WW extension I don't understand and cannot caution. But let's wait already for the Camarilla set B4 we begin to ask for other things... BTW, when do we get to pre-test it ? I'm in !!! I must say I'm skeptical on the potential (and real utility) of The Anarchs, but I trust WW to make it interesting. It looks like they alternate between "must have" and "can get" extensions, and that's a smart move : you don't HAVE to buy some Bloodlines, you'll HAVE to get somme Camarilla, maybe you won't really NEED The Anarchs but some will and you can always trade with them... Nice. -- Yours, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel) http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band) news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

Cool! But few questions will arise. What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck tournaments? Or are the all Gangrels soon independent? What I am going to do with my Gangrel vote deck then? :) Are we seeing new Justicars? - Guzmo

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >In addition, six >pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get >started quickly. Fabulous! >The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be >prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Also Fabulous! I'm content to wait for that Gangrel. Sounds like an excellent choice for a set. Here's hoping some of the power rarities get fixed. Since V:tES/Jyhad prices had gone up substantially of late, I'm much more hopeful about the sales of the expansion. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"Marko Saari" <DONTSENDmar...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<a9i8vk$p6k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > Cool! > > But few questions will arise. > > What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have > camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck > tournaments? Of course... !Tremere are all dead, and they can have titles. Assamites have eliminated their blood curse but still can't diablerize in the card game, etc... > Or are the all Gangrels soon independent? Any new gangrel released will be independent, or sabbat, or camerilla. They won't all be for just one sect. > What I am going to do with my > Gangrel vote deck then? :) Keep playing with it? Conversely: What should I do with my old !Tremere theft deck? Same thing. > > Are we seeing new Justicars? Count on it. 100 new vampires? Malks, Ven, Tor, Nos, Tre, Bru... that covers 6 clans (a precon for each I'm guessing). That's about 17 new vampires for each clan. SOME of them will have to have previously existing titles, don't you think? (Besides...if they're going to update with Gangrel leaving Cam, then thye should also update with the new justicars that have taken over, and new titles, etc...). ~SV

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com>... > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001. A year ago, or is that a typo? Or were they hoping we'd read "April 2001... Hey that's this month! We rock! er... wait, no... that was last year... we suck..." > "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new > stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck. > "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The > Eternal Struggle." Wow... what an amazingly non-epiphany creating quote. This Steve Wieck sure is a man of great somantics. > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > to play. Cards REAL players need to play: Blood Dolls Minion Taps Tribute to the master Bum's Rush Sudden Reversal DI Low caps with DOM Deflections Torn Signpost Immortal Grapple Disarm Obedience Freak Drive Psyche! Power Base (freeness) Montreal Am I missing anything? > The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > the boosters) and several new library cards. Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY would be able to answer this question, but...). > In addition, six > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > quickly. That's one for each can kids (except Caitiff and Gangrel, as mentioned next). So we should expect an Immortal Grapple in the Brujah precon, a freak drive and second tradition in the Ventrue one, apportations to be reprinted and included in the tremere one, Toreador Grandball in the Toreador one (and maybe a second or fifth), Obedience in the Malk one, another grapple in the nosferatu (or maybe a disarm... its more their style) along with a night moves. Sounds fair to me. > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, HAHAHA!!! > but they will be > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Hmmm... interesting. An all gangrel set, which includes 12 new city gangrel, 12 new country gangrel and 12 misc crazy gangrel, 10 new caitiff, pander, and some tremere antitribue. ??? <Snip shameless advertisement> Sweetness. ~SV

"Marko Saari" <DONTSENDmar...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<a9i8vk$p6k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > Cool! > > What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have > camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck > tournaments? Indeed. What will happen with all "old" cards from previous versions. I hope we don't go down the road of splitting tournament types and phasing out older sets simply to sell new cards. I tend to think VTES players wouldn't like that very much.

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.0204...@posting.google.com... > > > The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's > this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new > library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY > would be able to answer this question, but...). > I don't really agree with most of vermillian's sarcastic ramblings ;), but... it would be nice to have some idea of how many new cards there are. Having all new vamps is interesting, although with 100 of them, that pretty close to rules out the possibility of an uncommon sheet *and* a vampire sheet, meaning we're likely to have the same annoying rarity scheme as Bloodlines. I have a feeling there will be an announcement of exactly how many new cards there are in the set, at some later date, but... well... any chance that announcement could come sooner rather than later? 8)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com>... > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001. August 1st, that is? > "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new > stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck. > "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The > Eternal Struggle." "Stand-alone edition of the base set." Fully compatible with the previous sets? New game mechanics, or mostly concerned with cleaning up some old stuff? > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > the boosters) and several new library cards. In addition, six > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > quickly. The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Great move on both the 6 boosters and the subsequent expansion. I, too, am curious about 'several'. Let's talk %, say, 20 %? (100 new vampires, 20% of 200+ library cards means 140+ new cards... yum). Of course, if some of the highly desired 'old' cards re-appear, but this time with a favorable rarity scheme, this would mean the remaining 160ish cards are nothing to sneeze at either. Thanks, White Wolf! Time to pick up some boxes again. :) Tobias Deventer

vermillian wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > > > > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The > > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle > > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games > > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001. > > A year ago, or is that a typo? A year ago - that's the date of the Comics & Games Retailer which listed V:TES in its list of the top ten card games, as stated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:Hm8v8.2239$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > Having all > new vamps is interesting, although with 100 of them, that pretty close to rules > out the possibility of an uncommon sheet *and* a vampire sheet, meaning we're > likely to have the same annoying rarity scheme as Bloodlines. An annoying rarity scheme is certainly possible - though I have some hope that, given what they did for Bloodlines after the Final Nights complaints about too few R1s relative to R2s, they'll at least *try* not to be as annoying - but, parsing the announcement, there are supposed to be "over" 300 cards. Which means 4 sheets, given sheets of 100. So there should be three levels of library- card rarity (assuming, which may be unwarranted, that none of the sheets are dedicated solely to the starter-decks). Sadly this analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them. Unless there are 350 new cards and one of the sheets has 50 X2s on it, or some such. Josh reading between the lines

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.0204...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBC7B56...@white-wolf.com>... > > "More than just an expansion, The Camarilla Edition will be a new > > stand-alone edition of the base set," said project coordinator Steve Wieck. > > "This set is the fourth to be released by White Wolf for Vampire: The > > Eternal Struggle." > > Wow... what an amazingly non-epiphany creating quote. This Steve Wieck > sure is a man of great somantics. Be nice. It's a press release. All it's supposed to do is tell people what's happening, not create epiphanies. :-) > Cards REAL players need to play: > > Blood Dolls > Minion Taps > Tribute to the master > Bum's Rush > Sudden Reversal > DI > Low caps with DOM > Deflections > Torn Signpost > Immortal Grapple > Disarm > Obedience > Freak Drive > Psyche! > Power Base (freeness) Montreal > > Am I missing anything? Yeah, Wake/Forced. I don't think real players all *need* to have Psyche, Obedience, Disarm, or Direct Intervention, either. Those are pretty much only necessary if you want to play certain specific decks. Likewise the low caps with DOM (which in fact I would just as soon not see any of), Torn Signposts, and Immortal Grapples. Anyway, I'd bet that all these things (possibly barring Disarm, DI, and other things reprinted in Sabbat War, but not necessarily) will in fact be in the set. Josh guessing

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.0204...@posting.google.com... > > The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > Woah mamma'! A third of the cards will be vampires? Crazy! And what's > this several thingy... any specific number? Like, will I see a new > library card in the first pack I open or the tenth? (not that ANY > would be able to answer this question, but...). how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ? how can Betrayer be playable anyway ? =) maybe there will be split vampire cards ? =) the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ? oh, and i just want to add this before white wolf does "we used the word new vampires for the vampires you willf find in the boosters. We did not talk about what you will find in the starter. We didn't write anything about the promo vampires. You will find them in the starters, as usual. Note that those promo vampires are not promo-only vampires, which is slightly different. We all know that Promo and promo-only are not the same thing, don't we ? Promo only vampires are not scheduled. But not scheduled doesn't mean there will be no promo vampires. Not scheduled yet. But as you alreadymay know, there will be promo vampires, different from those you may (or may not) find in the starters. So maybe there will be promo-only (genuine promo) vampires, but they will not be in the starters along with those promo-vampires-you-don't-know-about-yet. This is white wolf talking, so everything is prefeclty clear " =D reyda

josh writes: >Sadly this >analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed >X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them. What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X and too poor for the next lower rarity. [ quoted text not captured ]

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020417125301...@mb-dd.aol.com... > josh writes: > > >Sadly this > >analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed > >X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them. > > What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites > are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X > and too poor for the next lower rarity. No, you're right, it doesn't have to be sad, but if it's anything like Bloodlines it easily could be. Sure, three rarities might not be enough, but six is probably too many. Or maybe it's just that R1s are too rare in a set with C2s. I dunno, I'm no authority on rarity-design, but it does seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many different rarities unless you have some magical method of knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are going to want. Josh ensaddened

LSJ wrote: > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > the boosters) and several new library cards. Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in favor of Camarilla. Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in the set... > In addition, six > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > quickly. Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract storyteller players to the CCG. > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for speculation, ey? Thomas

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBD6BCE...@white-wolf.com>... > vermillian wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > WHITE WOLF ANNOUNCES 'VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE - CAMARILLA EDITION > > > > > > ATLANTA, Ga. - White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The > > > Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle > > > card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle charted in the top ten card games > > > in Comics & Games Retailer in April 2001. > > > > A year ago, or is that a typo? > > A year ago - that's the date of the Comics & Games Retailer which > listed V:TES in its list of the top ten card games, as stated. Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They could have said "White Wolf announces the August 2002 release of The Camarilla Edition, the new base set for the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card game. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle contains cards made from 50% recycled paper." And I would have been just as intrigued as that other great fact. :) ~SV

vermillian wrote: > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs > > It would be very nice to see it include Caïtiff "makeshift disciplines" ; > some thin blooded, too (can play Daring the Dawn without taking > aggravated...). Weenies that can takes actions unblockable by vampires and not go to torpor? Thanks, but no thanks. >> and a few non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this >> set include Lasombra Antitribu, > > Maybe in the Cam set ? Unlikely. More likely to see a few vampires from some of the other printed clans, though. > But let's wait already for the Camarilla set B4 we begin to ask for other > things... BTW, when do we get to pre-test it ? I'm in !!! No, you're not. The playesting for the Camarilla set began a while ago and has certainly concluded by now. However, you may wish to e-mail LSJ regarding your interest in playtesting the Anarchs expansion. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a9ke89$43chk$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... [snip rarity stuff] > No, you're right, it doesn't have to be sad, but if it's > anything like Bloodlines it easily could be. Sure, three > rarities might not be enough, but six is probably too many. Yup, probably. Though I'm not certain that I would be saddened by seeing something like: 60 C1s 20 C2s 70 U1s 15 U2s 80 R1s 10 R2s You know, so it's balanced in favor of truth, justice, and the American Way. ;) > Or maybe it's just that R1s are too rare in a set with C2s. That could be it too. DS, though kind of a flop, at least didn't have the huge range of rarities. I think. > I dunno, I'm no authority on rarity-design, but it does > seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many > different rarities unless you have some magical method of > knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are > going to want. So since WW obviously doesn't have this method, now you're the magical man in gumdrop land that lives in a house on lollipop lane? :) Xian embiggened

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:a9kufa$43mm8$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:a9ke89$43chk$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > I dunno, I'm no authority on rarity-design, but it does > > seem to me that you usually shouldn't need that many > > different rarities unless you have some magical method of > > knowing exactly what proportion of each card players are > > going to want. > > So since WW obviously doesn't have this method... > Yeah, no kidding. Some wacko at WW actually posted that he thought Darkling Trickery was an anti-equipment card! ;) Good to see that I'm not the only one that thinks rarity proportion is important in a set. More common cards (assuming they're useful) = more packs I buy to get common cards. Your rarity scheme (snipped - sorry... too lazy to go cut and paste it back in) that allows for a small amount of R1's and a small amount of C2's (meaning more Blood Dolls and Wakes, mainly, which I will choke on and bitch about, but which everyone else seems to need more of - I guess I just bought a lot of starter decks to get fixed cards) is good, although hopefully they'd remember the Final Nights problem... (i.e. making the R1's new cards that are powerful) and make the R1's clan hosers or something similarly useless. I guess it's all just speculation now. Personally, I'm really torn between whether or not to pre-order any of the expansion until I hear what they screwed up. If it's a Bloodlines-like rarity scheme, I just don't want any of it. I'd rather trade for the new vamps, sheesh.

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message > > I should think that an Anarchs set would include a lot of Caitiffs and a few > non-aligned Sabbat clans. I would not be surprised to see this set include > Lasombra Antitribu, Perhaps a few, but I'd like to see one or two in the Cam too.... > Old Clan Tzimisce (ANI AUS DOM!) Well considering that there really isn't such thing as the "old clan" just a bunch of fogeys who didn't join the sabbat and decided to hide in their stuufy old castles, I don't expect to see them..... > and probably a few other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu Assamite > Antitribu, Ravnos are independant, no such thing as "antitribu", but that does beg the question: Will the Anarchs have their own designation "Anarch" or will they simply be "Independent"? > I'm all giddy I tell you! Agreed.... :)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBDD7CF...@white-wolf.com>... > vermillian wrote: > > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They > > Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm. I've been told that about alot of my definitions... Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"? :) ~SV

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.02041...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree, that would be 'bad'. And I mean Huey Lewis and the News 'Bad', not Michael Jackson 'Bad'.

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > LSJ wrote: > > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in > favor of Camarilla. > Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in > the set... I wouldn't think they'll be that many odd discipline combos (unlike Ancient Hearts), especially among the lower capacity vampires. This is supposed to be a new base set, therefore the majority of the vampires for each clan should focus around the core disciplines to enable new players without access to vampires from previous sets/expansions to play those clans effectively. Of course, some of the the higher cap vampires will have out of clan discpilines, but I'm hoping we won't see too many low caps with out of clan disciplines (e.g. Regilio), and especially not non-Cam disciplines. One or two would be fine, but as this is supposed to be a new base set, I hope we don't see to many for the sake of players entering the game with this set. Of course, having some (especially higher-caps) might encourage the new players to go back and get some cards from earlier sets/expansions to use those vamps, but too many would be a bad idea I feel. > > In addition, six > > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > > quickly. > > Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured > in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract > storyteller players to the CCG. Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE MINE!!!). > > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. > > Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that > will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for > speculation, ey? Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan allies? - Rafe

> > and probably a few other surprises. I suspect we'll see Ravnos Antitribu > Assamite > Antitribu, > > Ravnos are independant, no such thing as "antitribu", but that does beg the > question: > Will the Anarchs have their own designation "Anarch" or will they simply be > "Independent"? > Far be it for me to disagree with anyone. But, the Ravnos Antitribu are the Sabbat Ravnos. The designations was necessary to distinguish them from their independant brethren, with whom they ain't sharing much love. Tony Literary Thug

vermillian wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > vermillian wrote: > > > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They > > > > Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm. > > I've been told that about alot of my definitions... > > Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"? ... for your definitions? Sure. :-) In regards to the press release? Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data available" is fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:uCpv8.71159$CH1.66399@sccrnsc02... > Your rarity scheme (snipped - sorry... too lazy to go > cut and paste it back in) that allows for a small amount of R1's and a small > amount of C2's (meaning more Blood Dolls and Wakes, mainly, which I will choke > on and bitch about, but which everyone else seems to need more of - I guess I > just bought a lot of starter decks to get fixed cards) is good, although 60 C1s 20 C2s 70 U1s 15 U2s 80 R1s 10 R2s Actually, it's got a small amount of x2, and a large amount of x1s, which *I* think is desirable. That way, although you have a crapload of R1s, they're all equally valuable, and it's fairly easy to get a hold of *an* R1, maybe not one specific R1. Though I have no idea how that would actually work. Something more like 40 (x1) and 30 (x2) would be interesting, but I suspect that wouldn't make up the numbers of separate cards we're looking at. Then again, the initial rarity scheme I proposed doesn't come up with that either. Hmm. I'm guessing we're looking at 4 sheets, really. Maybe there *will* be a vampire rarity again? > hopefully they'd remember the Final Nights problem... (i.e. making the R1's new > cards that are powerful) and make the R1's clan hosers or something similarly > useless. Yeah, I was not all that thrilled with the FN rarity scheme myself, but I thought most of the cards that *were* R1s were appropriate. Okay, half of them were. It would have been nice if the vampires weren't. > I guess it's all just speculation now. Personally, I'm really torn between > whether or not to pre-order any of the expansion until I hear what they screwed > up. If it's a Bloodlines-like rarity scheme, I just don't want any of it. I'd > rather trade for the new vamps, sheesh. Heh. I'll be pre-ordering fairly soon, I think. Partly just to see what it's like, but also to get in on any unexpected goodies, like Dreams of the Sphinx in the Giovanni starter. :) Xian

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > how can they manage to do that? Do we need 100 new vampires? The Toreador certainly do. Worry not, LSJ's a smart guy. I'm sure he's figured out a way to prevent weenie madness. > how can Betrayer be playable anyway ? =) Use the best vampire that has ever been printed: Uriah Winter > maybe there will be split vampire cards ? =) I would think the paper quality would be better than that. > the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ? ??? You think the Tzimisce would create new Camarilla vampires? > This is white wolf talking, so everything is prefeclty clear " Be happy. At least White Wolf _is_ talking...unlike WotC when they had the game. Regards, Noal

> > > > Wow! I love corporations. Quoting nearly irrelevant information! They > > > > > > Your definition of "irrelevant" is wildly different than the norm. > > > > I've been told that about alot of my definitions... > > > > Would you accept something like "insignificant" "random" or "silly"? > > ... for your definitions? Sure. :-) > > In regards to the press release? > > Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data > available" is fine. Hehehe ... THAT'S my rulemonger. All of this is terrific news and thanks and congratulations to Scott, Steve and all involved in the project. The Anarchs sounds like a Cunning Plan that Cannot Fail. However, i do have one question: Scott, do you know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't give a dog-poo. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) wrote in message news:<19048d48.02041...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I concur. They are in the 'Guide to the Sabbat'. As are the other Antitribu, Serpents of Light, Harbinger of Skulls and Bloodbrothers... Sheesh, don't you people know anything? Next you'll be saying that the Ravnos Antediluvian is dead :) Martin

ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) wrote in message > Far be it for me to disagree with anyone. But, the Ravnos Antitribu > are the Sabbat Ravnos. The designations was necessary to distinguish > them from their independant brethren, with whom they ain't sharing > much love. The "antitribu" designation was simply to help the players to be able to distinguish that there were some Ravnos who affiliated themselves with the Sabbat and who chose different paths than Paradox, but they are not a separate or sub-set of the Ravnos clan. They are still Ravnos.

> how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ? Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla vampires... ie. Sir walter nash is STILL NAMED Sir WALter Nash but has a different set of skills - to represent a different period of time for WAlter - perhaps he even has a different title as well... but for contesting's sake, he's just plain old sir walter nash... i'm really making this up, but it would be really frikkin cool to have a different Ozmo or whatever, with a slightly differnt set of skills but it's still OZmo... never mind. jds

rafe...@hotmail.com (Rafe) wrote in message news:<b153a84.02041...@posting.google.com>... > Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in > > favor of Camarilla. > > Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in > > the set... > > I wouldn't think they'll be that many odd discipline combos (unlike > Ancient Hearts), especially among the lower capacity vampires. This > is supposed to be a new base set, therefore the majority of the > vampires for each clan should focus around the core disciplines to > enable new players without access to vampires from previous > sets/expansions to play those clans effectively. Of course, some of > the the higher cap vampires will have out of clan discpilines, but I'm > hoping we won't see too many low caps with out of clan disciplines > (e.g. Regilio), and especially not non-Cam disciplines. One or two > would be fine, but as this is supposed to be a new base set, I hope we > don't see to many for the sake of players entering the game with this > set. Of course, having some (especially higher-caps) might encourage > the new players to go back and get some cards from earlier > sets/expansions to use those vamps, but too many would be a bad idea I > feel. Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks should now have Dementation instead of Dominate. That means that Dementation should definitely be included in this set, and (dare I dream?) maybe even a Path for it. What I would love to see them do (though they could only do it with the Malks), is to actually re-use a bunch of the Jyhad/V:TES Malks, but give them equivalent levels of Dem instead of Dom, then make a rule that they contest with each other. Maybe that's silly, but I think it would be a good way to accurately portray the change. > > > The Gangrel are not a part of this set, but they will be > > > prominently featured in the subsequent expansion, The Anarchs. > > > > Hmm... really curious about that one just hearing this... an expansion that > > will include one full-fledged clan, as well as, well, hmm, time for > > speculation, ey? > > Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New > Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan > allies? > > - Rafe As long as that's ALL they appear as. Allies (and some Master cards) are really the only appropriate place to represent crossovers to other WW systems. I would hate to see an attempt to incorporate Cathayans as actual Vampire cards. My best realistic guess for Anarchs? A lot of Cali-specific locations. - Volya42

legbiter wrote: > However, i do have one question: Scott, do you > know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will > reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me > kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't > give a dog-poo. Some of the reprints will have new art, yes. I don't know what the exact ratio is, though, for new-art reprints vs. "standard" reprints. [ quoted text not captured ]

"freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> wrote in message news:fc6a5b20.02041...@posting.google.com... > > how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ? > > Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla > vampires... I'd Like to see Appolonius, Justicar of the Brujah =) all those years waiting in the shadows, now back with POT CEL PRE FOR =D

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBEB25A...@white-wolf.com>... > vermillian wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > vermillian wrote: > In regards to the press release? > > Whatever word you have that matches "most recent applicable data > available" is fine. Convenient sounds good. :) ~SV

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > LSJ wrote: > > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire balance in > favor of Camarilla. > Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in > the set... > > > In addition, six > > pre-constructed decks will also be released so that players can get started > > quickly. > > Great move - no one will have to complain their favorite clan wasn't featured > in a starter. I think this is a good move in terms of trying to attract > storyteller players to the CCG. Except the Gangrel, but they're featured in another set, which won't have a precon for it I bet. :) ~SV

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > LSJ wrote: > > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > balance in favor of Camarilla. What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in and of itself, perfectly balanced? > Unless of course there'll be unexpectedly large numbers of "odd" vampüires in > the set... Splain Lucy. -Curious Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

> > I would think the paper quality would be better than that. > > > the upper part is Ventrue, the lower part is toreador ? > > ??? > > You think the Tzimisce would create new Camarilla vampires? Sweet, it's my pet the torritrue!! *snicker* The make better foot stools than the standard Torridor LOL [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CBF1016...@white-wolf.com... > legbiter wrote: > > However, i do have one question: Scott, do you > > know/can you tell us anything about the artwork? In particular, will > > reprints of old cards have old artwork, or new? The collector in me > > kinda hopes for the latter, but the MUCH more dominant player doesn't > > give a dog-poo. > > Some of the reprints will have new art, yes. > > I don't know what the exact ratio is, though, for new-art reprints > vs. "standard" reprints. > He has a point, however miniscule, in that more recent data puts VTES out of the top ten in retail sales.

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:246a2977.02041...@posting.google.com... > > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new > Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in > and of itself, perfectly balanced? > In the same way that printing, for example, the following vampires would be unbalancing: Koku Nosferatu 2 pot Kuko Nosferatu 2 pot KuKu Nosferatu 2 pot Duck-fu Nosferatu 3 pot obf Printing a dozen new Ventrue would be unbalancing if they were all 3 caps with superior Presence, for example.

[snip] > > Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck > tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not > available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE > MINE!!!). From the press release it seems that all of the cards will be available from the boosters. therefore a collector will not necessarily need to buy any of the pre-cons. LSJ, can you verify this? [snip] > Given the 'defection' of a significant number of Anarchs to the New > Promise Mandarinate in the RPG, perhaps we'll see some Cathayan > allies? > I don't think they'll make the same mistake they made with the Gargoyle Slave Ally. I have a feeling they will try to incorporate the Eastern vamps into the game as more than just allies. I wouldn't have said that a while ago but now that we have salubri, harbingers, baali...anything is possible. Chris.

"freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> wrote in message news:fc6a5b20.02041...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make Clio's Kiss @ <TEM> more useful.

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:246a2977.02041...@posting.google.com... > Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > The Camarilla Edition features over 300 cards available in booster > > > assortments from which players will be able to get all the cards they need > > > to play. The set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in > > > the boosters) and several new library cards. > > > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new > Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in > and of itself, perfectly balanced? He means that it'll be easier to build certain deck types because there will be more access to vampires of particular capacities with particular discipline mixes. Weenie presence vote is a good example. It's already a viable ( and unplesant ) deck but if you give the Ventrue more weenies with pre or PRE then you'll see a mono-clan weenie presence vote deck which will be even worse, if only because they're going to call Consag Boon Ventrue instead of Autarkis Persecution and you're not going to get any pool when it passes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > balance in favor of Camarilla. They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who cares? It works the same way as for rare cards. Rare cards give you more choices but that doesn't unbalance the game. It makes no difference w.r.t. BALANCE whether I get to choose from a 20 malks or a dozen malks to build my deck. Maybe it's more interesting to have more choice but its not unbalanced. C. Harmon `-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`-`- Got Malk?

Robert Goudie wrote: > Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > What do you mean by this? How would adding, for example, a dozen new > Ventrue be unbalancing assuming that each each Ventrue added is, in > and of itself, perfectly balanced? > Simple: take any one deck that is fairly strong at the moment, and remove the the need to double up on key vampires by printing vampires with near-identical statistics. No more risk of a poor crypt draw removes a balancing factor for this deck, particulalry as compared to non-Camarilla decks. And there's quite a few examples: (Ventrue) Weenie presence has already been mentioned twice; I'll add to this that Ye Olde Big Ventrue Political gets a lot better if you don't have to douple up on Nash and Emerson because you get yet more cap 7-8 princes. Weenie potence has already been mentioned. The one we don't need to worry about is various Malkavian decks, because vampires will have a discipline mismatch... but to illustrate the point: protomalks would love Anders Gregorson, 7-cap Prince of Kopenhagen, with pro dom AUS OBF. Me, I could go for another Nosferatu prince with fortitude or two. Et cetera. Thomas

Chris Harmon schrieb: > Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CBDC81F...@aon.at>... > > Hmm... this sounds like an interesting compromise for making the set > > interesting to both old and new players - though I personally am a bit > > surpirised that there'll be so many new vampires... unless most of these will > > have odd discipline mixes, this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to > have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who > cares? > > It works the same way as for rare cards. No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of context, Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an exact clone of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by substantially reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up on key vampires, if clones of these are printed. The risk of a poor crypt draw will still exist for many non-Camarilla decks; if it is indeed largely eliminated for Camarilla decks, this is a definite swing in game balance. Thomas

>No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of >context, >Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an >exact clone >of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by >substantially >reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if there were 5 new clone Daughters. Right now, 'cept using weird CI/Sanguine Instruction, or Infernal Familiars/Pacts, etc. there are only 5 Daughters who can play Choir, meaning you can only do 8 pool of damage due to NRA. However, with another 5 Daughters (most of who are weenies), you can easily do *A LOT* more choir damage. Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone. In addition, a larger selection also means you can sub out some older vampires if you can have a newer younger vampire who's a better fit. Why waste an extra pool on Emerson's potence when you can add a Walter Clone (along with Walter who's already in your deck). If another 3-cap with PRE comes out, people might start "upgrading" Violette with the Gideon-clone. It allows greater efficiency. Take a look at some of the smaller clans/bloodlines. Because there are fewer vampires, they are *forced* to use vampires, often paying a lot more for out-of-clan disciplines they'd never use. Etc, etc. Halcyan 2

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:08:02 +0200, Marty wrote: > Sheesh, don't you people know anything? Next you'll be saying that the > Ravnos Antediluvian is dead :) > > Martin I'm not quite dead. Ravnos

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.02041...@posting.google.com>... > [snip] > > > > Yes, plus as someone else mentioned it will add spice to sealed deck > > tournaments, and WW will sell more precons (each precon has cards not > > available in the boosters or any of the other precons? THEY MUST BE > > MINE!!!). > > From the press release it seems that all of the cards will be > available from the boosters. therefore a collector will not > necessarily need to buy any of the pre-cons. LSJ, can you verify this? Note that the press release does not say that all the cards in the set can be found in the boosters; it only states that "the set includes 100 new vampires (all of which can be found in the boosters)". The wording of this press release therefore allows exclusive cards to appear in the precons, which could include New library cards Reprinted library cards (possibly with new art?) Reprinted vampires - Rafe

tlo...@satx.rr.com (Tobias Loehr) wrote in message news:<ddd3e087.02041...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes they are, in the same way that Toreador Antitribu are still Toreador. The Ravnos Antitribu are as separate a clan as any of the Antitribu clans. The "True" Ravnos simply aren't in the Camarilla. The same applies to the Assamites. The "True" clan is independant, the "Anti" clan is Sabbat. No don't make me explain it again;) Tony Literary Thug

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:ubv3evk...@news.supernews.com... (snip) > I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with > updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly > even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make Clio's > Kiss @ <TEM> more useful. My Democritus from the future (11 cap, ventrue IC) does not contest your Ancient Democritus (10 ventrue Justicar) anymore thanks to clio's kiss =) funny, ain't it ?

"freakdrivr" <freak...@ponymail.com> a écrit dans le message news: fc6a5b20.02041...@posting.google.com... > > how can they manage to do that ? Do we need 100 new vampires ? > > Perhaps they have just made different versions of current Camarilla > vampires... > ie. Sir walter nash is STILL NAMED Sir WALter Nash but has a different > set of skills - to represent a different period of time for WAlter - > perhaps he even has a different title as well... but for contesting's > sake, he's just plain old sir walter nash... Just like the experienced versions of Characters in the Legend of the Five Rings CCG =) I really like this idea ! Miller delmardigan Sabbat Priscus http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > >No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of > >context, > >Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an > >exact clone > >of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by > >substantially > >reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? > > Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if there > were 5 new clone Daughters. > My point exactly. It might not be quite as extreme with the Camarilla clans, but I'm positive 100 new vampires, probably mostly for the 6 remaining Camarilla clans, will have an impact. > Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing > duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x > Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone. > That was actually the very first thing I though of when reading 100 new vampires... scary thought, is it not? Thomas

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > Others have already discussed how it can be beneficial by not needing > duplicates of certain vampires anymore. So instead of 2 x Crowley and 2 x > Walter, you can have 1 Crowley, 1 Crowley Clone, 1 Walter, and 1 Walter Clone. What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set? Legbiter's Betrayer deck would certainly suffer, but it would solve the issue of Weenie madness (potential result from more 2-4 caps) and "clone" vampires. There are some vampires from the older sets that may have specials that would make you want to use that set rather than the new one, Anson for example. Whereas the new Camarilla vampires would have a better concentration of disciplines from a current cost scheme point of view. I wasn't involved in playtesting at all, so this is nothing more than pondering on my part, but the idea certainly has potential. I also have a gut feeling there may be negative consequences, but I can't really put my finger on any. What do y'all think? Regards, Noal

>What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set >vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set? > I don't know. It sounds too much like approaching the Type II thing, where eventually the game gets schismed. If the new cards are good enough, there won't be any incentive to play with the old cards, and Jyhad/VTES has always been good with integrating the old with the new. In addition, I like the contesting issues. With this scheme, it may be heading towards the point where each player is essentially playing their own game. Isn't it kind of like that if you play Mythos but the different players are each using cards from a different "dimension?" There's not as much room for interaction. In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if it's worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones. They may even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical future expansion might preclude combining with those cards. And finally, everytime an old player picks up his cards again and asks "if his old cards are compatible with the new ones" instead of a simple "yes" we'll have to go through a long-winded explanation of "yes but..." Halcyan 2 Halcyan 2

In article <6f81fa2c.02041...@posting.google.com>, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote: >Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline >change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks >should now have Dementation instead of Dominate. I would classify that as a potentially erroneous conclusion. Anatole is a signature character from the novels, and as such has a defined existence outside the card game with stats and all. The VtES version has to reflect that, and has the Dementation that his revised-edition-compliant self has. To conclude that all new Malks in the card game will have Demenation instead of Dominate is hasty, though certainly possible. I do recall a statement to the effect that they wouldn't be changing standard clan disciplines in VtES to avoid screwing the clan in question, though a justification could maybe be made in this case, due to the largish number of new vampires being produced, allowing for a critical mass even without bringing their antitribu brethren into the deck. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is AAAHHH THE SUN!!!" *PHOOM!* -- Romeo the Vampire

> In addition, I like the contesting issues. With this scheme, it may be heading > towards the point where each player is essentially playing their own game. > Isn't it kind of like that if you play Mythos but the different players are > each using cards from a different "dimension?" There's not as much room for > interaction. Hey, somebody else played Mythos before! Actually, Mythos didn't really have enough interaction to begin with...the dimension thing didn't change much. You could still attack each other and play events on each other, but Mythos was usually just a race, really, to see whose deck went off first. A really pretty race with surreal creatures and colorful borders, but a race, nonetheless. Back to contestion, though...how much interaction through contesting vampires do you generally see? I see it as a minor interaction, serving more to prevent one guy from bringing out multiples of Gideon Fontaine or Information Highway than to keep two players from having similar decks. > In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if > it's worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones. > They may even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical > future expansion might preclude combining with those cards. Magic's Type II is basically a some-thousand-card banned list...and that just sucks, I think.

> > > this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > > balance in favor of Camarilla. I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head, BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent Calebros, that is. > > They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to > > have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who > > cares? > > > > It works the same way as for rare cards. > > No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of > context, Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of > Cacaphony, each an exact clone of one of the existing ones, instantly make a > DoC deck more powerful by substantially reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? > > It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up > on key vampires, if clones of these are printed. No, it works similarly. The fewer of a vampire in print, the bigger a difference a duplicate would make. Another 8-cap with everything at basic, for example, would be HUGE, whereas another 3 cap aus obf to add to Dollface, Dan Murdock, Regilio, Lena Rowe, and Zoe would not really matter so much. In fact, once a certain vamp reaches 12 copies, another one doesn't matter at all, such as 4 cap dom. There are already enough to make a winning deck without any duplicates at all. This is why another Daughter would be a big deal, but another 100 Cam vampires may only be fair. As to weenies, I wouldn't mind if they printed as many weenies with balanced disciplines as they want, so long as there are more effects to counter that (Justine etc.) They only come with one discipline, that's a drawback as is. If there were KoKu, KuKo, KuKu etc, you would still need Hector Sosa, Agatha etc. to not bog down your master phase with POT skill cards. --Brian

"Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > The "antitribu" designation was simply to help the players to be able > > to distinguish that there were some Ravnos who affiliated themselves > > with the Sabbat and who chose different paths than Paradox, but they > > are not a separate or sub-set of the Ravnos clan. They are still > > Ravnos. > > Yes they are, in the same way that Toreador Antitribu are still > Toreador. Nope sorry. The !Toreador have decided to throw off everything thier "parent" clan stands for. To take all the ideals of the main clan and to twist them into perverted reflections of that. This is the same with nearly all the Antitribu clans. The !Ravnos have not done that. They did not say "We are going the Sabbat because we wish to bring down the main clan!" No they join the Sabbat to be with like minded individuals or simply to experience something they haven't. The Ravnos will not hunt them down, will not act against them once they stop associating with the Sabbat (if they do of course), will not treat them then nothing less or more than just another Ravnos. Can that be said of the !Toreador and Toreador? Individuals perhaps, as a whole not in the slightest. > The Ravnos Antitribu are as separate a clan as any of the > Antitribu clans. The "True" Ravnos simply aren't in the Camarilla. The > same applies to the Assamites. The "True" clan is independant, the > "Anti" clan is Sabbat. They are separate only by ideals and circumstance. If you asked a !Ravnos and a Ravnos if they were in the same clan they would say "yes". If you asked a !Toreador and Toreador if they were in the same clan they would say "no". This applies to the Assimites as well. This does NOT apply to the Serpents of the Light. They made a conscious choice to hate the parent clan and work directly against their goals. This cannot be said of the other two. > No don't make me explain it again;) *sigh* I was the one who had to explain it again... ;)

> > I do like that idea. Some new vampires but also some of our oldies with > > updated sets of disciplines, or even a change/removal of title, possibly > > even with specials for some who didn't have one before. Might make Clio's > > Kiss @ <TEM> more useful. > > My Democritus from the future (11 cap, ventrue IC) does not contest your > Ancient Democritus (10 ventrue Justicar) anymore thanks to clio's kiss =) > > funny, ain't it ? > Excepting, of course, that cards are contested by CARD TITLE, not by anything details in the text of the card....

"The Bard of Crete" <tlo...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message news:xXjw8.19792$oj5.8...@typhoon.austin.rr.com... > > The !Toreador have decided to throw off everything thier > "parent" clan stands for. To take all the ideals of the main clan and to > twist them into perverted reflections of that. This is the same with nearly > all the Antitribu clans. > > The !Ravnos have not done that. They did not say "We are going the Sabbat > because we wish to bring down the main clan!" No they join the Sabbat to be > with like minded individuals or simply to experience something they haven't. > The Ravnos will not hunt them down, will not act against them once they stop > associating with the Sabbat (if they do of course), will not treat them then > nothing less or more than just another Ravnos. > > Can that be said of the !Toreador and Toreador? Individuals perhaps, as a > whole not in the slightest. > It can be said about Nosferatu and !Nos. But they are separate clans.

"The Bard of Crete" <tlo...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message news:qZjw8.19793$oj5.8...@typhoon.austin.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] you didn not get the point ;) (read clios kiss text, maybe ? =) )

> > > > this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires > were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with > Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head, > BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see > how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print > the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent > Calebros, that is. I've discussed this in a post some time ago. The Cam really is in need of new and better vampires but you do risk having an overpowered sect ecspecially the traditions pose a problem. With the origional vtes and jyhad it's dificult too make any weenie princes deck albeit weenie torreador or ventrue since they have an abundance of pre which makes them able to push any vote through using awe. but if we get any more weenie pre or pot or dom vampires WW would have undone all the fattie promotion they have been doing the past 2 sets. > > > They don't need to make odd discipline mixes. What harm does it do to > > > have extra choices for vampires? If each one is balanced then who > > > cares? I know most people hate multi discipline cards (well atleast in my meta game they do)but they are rather usefull nose of the hound for example becomes really usefull because of the minor Auspex version(Tzimische love it) > > > It works the same way as for rare cards. > > > > No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of > > context, Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of > > Cacaphony, each an exact clone of one of the existing ones, instantly make a > > DoC deck more powerful by substantially reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? So they won't print anymore bloodlines why would we need any more daughters anyway they're quiet playable as it stands I would like to see the entire scarce mechanic dropped though now that would be sweet! > > It works the same for any existing Camarilla deck that doubles or triples up > > on key vampires, if clones of these are printed. well they're going to print 100 new vampires in a 300 card set that won't leave much or any room for reprinted old vampires or else we're going to get like 100 liberary cards. So I guess we can rule out reprints of old vampires. All in all I think it's save to say that the Cammarilla edition has had to be a really tough set to make for WW not only did they had to consider the fact that this set should do for vtes as SW has done for it that is envite new players but they also had to make sure the set doesn't shift the complete balance of the game I for one am more curious about the new vampires then I am of the new cards. Perhaps they could bring out the 7th traditions it could be something too do with a fire fighter or a mortal lover an ally that couldn't be blocked by Cammarilla vampires some weird Book of Nod stuff :P

"Emile Bosman" <ebo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cbf416fb.02042...@posting.google.com... > > well they're going to print 100 new vampires in a 300 card set that > won't leave much or any room for reprinted old vampires or else we're > going to get like 100 liberary cards. So I guess we can rule out > reprints of old vampires. > I think it's likely that the starter decks will contain 10-12 reprinted vampires and 0-2 new vampires. I assume that all vampires in the boosters will be new. Hopefully there will be along the lines of 40-50 new library cards as well, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes; >I think it's likely that the starter decks will contain 10-12 reprinted >vampires and 0-2 new vampires. I assume that all vampires in the boosters will >be new. Hopefully there will be along the lines of 40-50 new library cards as >well, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Since a large portion of WW's goal is to bring new players into the game they would be better off if the starters were overwhelmingly reprints. That way new players could get their old cards from WW, and get them easily from retailers, etc. If new players can't get old cards in the starters, then they will have a powerful incentive to spend money on Jyhad/V:tES boxes, which will be money that doesn't go to WW. Yeah, we would be better off if there's a lot of new cards in the starters, but as long as they have a reasonable number of the old high-rarity semi-power cards I'll be content. The current starters are pretty good that way; cards which I really want to have for an X deck are frequently in the starters. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

"The Bard of Crete" <tlo...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message news:<qZjw8.19793$oj5.8...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] HEHEHEHHEHE, this maybe MY card in the EXP: 11 cap, Tremere IC, Ulugh Beg pay a less blood for play THAU cards :-) play U had now 8 Great idea!! I wanna see the olds vamps with his/her new set of Titles & disciplines . I will be COOL! MOST REGARDS!! ULUGH BEG (happy possible TREMERE IC!

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020421004806...@mb-fx.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] WW have done a good job in the past with the post Jyhad starters and I believe they'll do it again. I'd stopped just before the first expansion came out and started again when Sabbat War came out. I bought 8 Tzimisce starters because I wanted Horrid Form, Breath of the Dragon and a few other cards which only came in the starters. I bought several Giovanni starters for the Dreams, vampires and a couple of other goodies that were only in the startes.

Santiago <sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.umug.org> wrote in message news:<santiago-92FA9A...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>... > In article <6f81fa2c.02041...@posting.google.com>, > vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote: > > >Well, keep in mind that one clan has gone through a major discipline > >change: the Malkavians. As we saw with Anatole, Camarilla Malks > >should now have Dementation instead of Dominate. > > I would classify that as a potentially erroneous conclusion. > Anatole is a signature character from the novels, and as such has a > defined existence outside the card game with stats and all. The VtES > version has to reflect that, and has the Dementation that his > revised-edition-compliant self has. To conclude that all new Malks in > the card game will have Demenation instead of Dominate is hasty, though > certainly possible. I do recall a statement to the effect that they > wouldn't be changing standard clan disciplines in VtES to avoid screwing > the clan in question, though a justification could maybe be made in this > case, due to the largish number of new vampires being produced, allowing > for a critical mass even without bringing their antitribu brethren into > the deck. Okay, perhaps Anatole was just an exception, but I don't think that a switch would necessarily screw the Malks, as long as there are enough of them in the expansion. I'd be curious when that statement of non-change was issued, and what exactly it said. Can you or anyone else scrounge that up? I do see that, at least with the Assamites as an example, they HAVE avoided some wholesale incorporation of revised-edition updates, so I suppose I could see them doing that again. The Assamites have Tajdid, though. Would the Malks have a Master that converts all ready Malks with Dom over to equivalent levels of Dementation? How hard would it be to build a deck around that? So, I see your point about not taking Anatole necessarily as an indicator, but I really do hope they go ahead and make the conversion. Do we really need any more DOM/AUS/OBF vampires? Volya42

> > This is the same with nearly all the Antitribu clans. > > > It can be said about Nosferatu and !Nos. But they are separate clans. Like I said "nearly" all.... The official party lines of the Cam and the Sabbat will say that the Nos and !Nos are separate, but the Nos and !Nos will tell you otherwise. To them clan is more important than sect. And I suppose that is the point I was making for the Ravnos et al. And my thinking has actually been backed up by the cards so far. There has been a Ravnos who is actually Sabbat but still has the normal Ravnos clan symbol...

ebo...@hotmail.com (Emile Bosman) wrote in message news:<cbf416fb.02042...@posting.google.com>... > > > > > this might cause a heavy swing of vampire > > > > > balance in favor of Camarilla. > > I would say it's more of evening the score a bit. Sabbat vampires > > were, say, 70% all good vampires. Original set was loaded up with > > Appolonius etc. for more like 40%. (These are off the top of my head, > > BTW, so I may be wrong.) Still, compare the Nos to the !Nos to see > > how much better the Sabbat can be...I think this set may just print > > the first GREAT 3-6 cap nossies. Besides Duck and the very recent > > Calebros, that is. > I've discussed this in a post some time ago. > The Cam really is in need of new and better vampires but you do risk > having an overpowered sect ecspecially the traditions pose a problem. > With the origional vtes and jyhad it's dificult too make any weenie > princes deck albeit weenie torreador or ventrue since they have an > abundance of pre which makes them able to push any vote through using > awe. > but if we get any more weenie pre or pot or dom vampires WW would have > undone all the fattie promotion they have been doing the past 2 sets. Nah. There are enough potence weenies to make a deck as you want anyways, with the exception of a 3 cap with POT. 2 1 caps, 4 2 caps*, and 11 3 caps have pot. More than enough selection. Weenie dom is bit different. Currently you have to either duplicate or go up to 4 cap to get 12 dom/DOM vampires. More 2/3 caps with dom would mess things up, but more 4 caps wouldn't. Presence weenies, if you are doing the praxis-presence thing, it all depends. Sure, another Gideon Fontaine is nice. At most, there would be 3 more Gideon Clones, and that's a stretch as one of them would have to be a Brujah with PRE @ 3... seems unlikely. But if you're going to try and avoid needing to tool up your vampires with pre masters, you still need to go up to 6 cap to avoid doubling. A deck that uses masters could be a bit more efficient with those new vampires in replacing Mariana Gilbert, Violette Prentise and maybe one other vampire. But it's not the end of the world. If you're just bleeding with pre weenies, there's 14 with capacity at or below 3.. not a huge deal in any case. * - Marciana doesn't count

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02041...@posting.google.com>... > What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set > vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set? <snip> > I wasn't involved in playtesting at all, so this is nothing more than > pondering on my part, but the idea certainly has potential. I also > have a gut feeling there may be negative consequences, but I can't > really put my finger on any. This is a hideous idea. Magic *needed* type II because the costs of competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars. This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading towards. Vtes has no real equivalence here. There is really nothing quite like a mox where you must have (exactly) five of this card in your deck and the card books at over a hundred dollars a pop. There is really nothing quite like a lotus, walk, twist, ancestral, etc. etc.. Jyhad and Vtes have cards that are powerful and hard to find, but nothing even remotely approaching say a Library. So, from a strictly monetary standpoint, there's no need. A new player can trade for an AI, Gideon Fontaine, or 2nd trad if he really thinks he needs it. Most of the people reading this would gladly give a newbie a copy of gideon they have in some musty old box, collecting dust. We've all got plenty. The play balance issue is slightly different. I'll come right out now and say that this won't lead to a 'balancing' effect many have desired. Because you have to think of it like this. There is this new set of Camarilla vampires, let's call them Camarilla II, and the other camarilla vampires, Camarilla I. There are only 16 or 17 members of each clan of camarilla II. There are 24 or 25 of each clan of Camarilla I. You're going to have to include sub-par vampires into your mono-clan-camarilla II deck... your capacity is going to be all over the place too. So in addition to having to balance Camarilla I and any new library cards they get vs the Independants and the Sabbat, you have to separately balance Camarilla II vs the Independants, Sabbat, and Camarilla I. Now, when the anarchs come out, are we going to have Independants I and Independants II? Furthermore, do people really care that much about the balance of the sects, especially if it is going to be done in such a superficial way as banning entire sets of vampires? What about blood lines? I mean, the Baali aren't as going to rack up wins at the same rate as the (!)Malks. Is this a big deal? Do we need to print the Cam II vampires so that they are on the same power level as the !Salubri? Sure, having Ventrue prince #7 and #8 makes them a bit stronger, but unless they've got some obf (and avoid being Suhailah, discipline wise), they're still going to have a lack of stealth and will fall to the same strats as before. More OBF/DOM Malks would be a bad thing at lower capacity because there isn't much in the way of superior DOM with any level of obf until the higher capacities. Bringing this down would mean stealth bleed insanity. But it's not so much a balancing Malks thing as it is balancing obf and dom. There needs to be some incentive for older players, who will make up the *vast* majority of potential customers for this set, to buy the cards. Well, if this set can't be played with my existing cards, why buy it? Some bloodlines might be a stretch to work into an existing deck, but at least you can try. Forget about working the new vamps into existing decks, they're illegal! Well screw that then whats the point of even bothering? I've got enough reprints of torn signpost to last me; I don't need the new artwork version, and it'll just be more indistinguishable Shy work anyways.

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >>What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set >>vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set? > > It sounds too much like approaching the Type II thing, where eventually the > game gets schismed. I don't know anything about the Type I/Type II thing since I have probably never played more than a score of M:TCH games in my life and have yet to spend a penny on the cursed thing. I understand that schism is a real concern. I'm just not sure whether a schism or a flood of weenies is the bigger threat. If you just use the new set to fill holes, it won't meet the intended goal of being a set that can stand on its own merits. However, meeting that goal may have other balance issues. Maybe they'll go the route of Sabbat War, mixing existing vampires with new ones. > In addition, it may set a bad precedent. A starting player might wonder if > it's worth buying old cards (DS or AH) if he can't use them with new ones. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was referring only to Jyhad/V:TES. I had meant to infer, but probably should have stated, that the Camarilla vampires from the expansions (DS,AH,FN) could be used with either set. > They may even wonder if it's worth buying SW or FN because some hypothetical > future expansion might preclude combining with those cards. True...the worst effect would be to undermine consumer confidence. > And finally, everytime an old player picks up his cards again and asks "if > his old cards are compatible with the new ones" instead of a simple "yes" > we'll have to go through a long-winded explanation of "yes but..." Ugh. You may be right. It might make it more painful for newbies to mix the stuff they buy with the donations of old card stock from older players. Regards, Noal

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > I don't know anything about the Type I/Type II thing since I have > probably never played more than a score of M:TCH games in my life and > have yet to spend a penny on the cursed thing. Consider yourself lucky and ahead monitarily. Type II is the worst scam/farse I have ever witnessed. Basically it is tournament where only the last 3 expansions are leagal to play with. But what about all those cards before that? Too bad. It is basically a money making scheme because anyone who wants to play has to keep buying new cards.

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3CC05D7B...@aon.at>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > >No, it doesn't. And this is easy to prove by considering, completely out of > > >context, > > >Bloodlines for a moment. Would printing 5 new Daughters of Cacaphony, each an > > >exact clone > > >of one of the existing ones, instantly make a DoC deck more powerful by > > >substantially > > >reducing the risk of a bad crypt draw? > > > > Actually, the Daughters of Cacophony would be TREMENDOUSLY more powerful if there > > were 5 new clone Daughters. > > > > My point exactly. It might not be quite as extreme with the Camarilla clans, but > I'm positive 100 new vampires, probably mostly for the 6 remaining Camarilla clans, > will have an impact. Sure an impact, but I've heard somewhere that a lot of these new vampires are going to be having a lot more specials... so you might have that PRE vampire, but he'll be a four cap cause he'll have something stupid like +1 hand damage. Course, that was just from what I heard. So assume that of the 33% of the new vampires will be 4-6 cap vampires. Then assume 75% of them have only inclan disc. Now assume 75% of them have no special. That's still 18 new vampires, but only 3 for each clan... hmm... that's still pretty good. OK. I concede to your point. Camerilla rocks. ~SV

> They are separate only by ideals and circumstance. If you asked a !Ravnos > and a Ravnos if they were in the same clan they would say "yes". If you > asked a !Toreador and Toreador if they were in the same clan they would say > "no". This applies to the Assimites as well. Which can apply to the Nosferatu, the Malkavians and possibly the Gangrel too. Considering that being "seperate only by ideals and circumstance" is what founded the Sabbat in the first place, I am loathe to claim that they are the same clan. If we look to the RPG, even the rulebook states that the "antitribu" are a seperate bloodline, even if it is only by preference of ideology and no distinct change in the Vitae. Antitribu designates that there is a bloodline that diverges from the main clan by sect-affiliation. In the Ravnos case, it means they ain't Independant, but Sabbat. In the Lasombra case, it means they're Camarilla, not Sabbat. These are of course generalisations, Lucita is an example to the contrary, showing simply that Antitribu can mean diversion by sect-affiliation (or the loss of such a thing), even if she's not Antitribu anymore... Regards - Andrew

vermillian wrote: > > "Marko Saari" <DONTSENDmar...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:<a9i8vk$p6k$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>... > > Cool! > > > > But few questions will arise. > > > > What will happen to pre camarilla expansion Gangrel vampires? Can they have > > camarilla titles when the new cards become legal for V:EKN constructed deck > > tournaments? > > Of course... !Tremere are all dead, and they can have titles. > Assamites have eliminated their blood curse but still can't diablerize > in the card game, etc... > If the !Tremere are all dead then why are there two in the Final Nights set? Maybe there will be !Tremere in the Anarchs set? Shadowdragon

"Michael (Shadowdragon)" <mtbed...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3CCCC42E...@rogers.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] OK, not ALL dead. !Tremere were pretty much all killed off, as a clan, in the Clanbook series released way back in the day. This was also when the Gangrel (stupidly) left the Camerilla (I say stupidly because it was a LAME reason they left... damn lazy WW writers... think of something better than that, jeez...), and also when the Assmites could diablerie. So they're not all dead, but pretty much. Besides, we know the !Tremere was included just to get people to buy that set. :) ~SV

vermillian wrote: > This was also > when the Gangrel (stupidly) left the Camerilla (I say stupidly because > it was a LAME reason they left... damn lazy WW writers... think of > something better than that, jeez...), You know, I wondered if anyone else felt that way. I totally agree. I don't think clans could be leaving the Camarilla just because they got into *one* big fight with something they couldn't beat and went to *one* ragtag strategy meeting of a handful of not-all-that-important vampires currently working on a completely different and rather challenging problem themselves and failed to cause a panic and so petulantly decided to leave and take their ball and go home. If *that's* as committed to the Camarilla as the Gangrel were, one would have assumed they would have left it about 2.7 seconds after they joined it. I hate it when fiction just seems so,....you know...fictional. Yuck. Fred

CurtAdams wrote: > > josh writes: > > >Sadly this > >analysis also leads us to conclude that there'll probably be mixed > >X1/X2 rarity on at least one sheet, if not in fact all of them. > > What's sad about that? The frequency gaps between the rarites > are large, and X2 helps put in spots for cards too good for X > and too poor for the next lower rarity. I think it depends on which rarity sheet it is. If it's the uncommon sheet, it's really likely to be completely harmless. If it's the rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back on the turntable for another play. That would be sad. If it's the common sheet, it might be kind of annoying if we wind up with C2s that are far too common for their utility but it's unlikely to be a completely horrible thing. Fred

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3CCE4F53...@removethis.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hopefully when the anarchs book is released they'll give the gangrel other reasons for leaving that weren't explained in the clan books... ~SV

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > Magic *needed* type II because the costs of > competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting > insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at > the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars. > This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading > towards. That's not really the whole story. Another part of it was the same thing WotC/the DCI absolutely refused to do with V:tES also: ban cards. Due to the fact that the Magic designers didn't understand the concept of card balance very well (remind you of something they did in V:tES? the original Mind Rape anybody? How 'bout ToRIII?) and the fact that they changed their ideas about it significantly from the original card set to what they decided was fair to print two or three years later, the first 4-6 expansions and the first four main sets had a *lot* of cards that were so powerful they wouldn't print such cards in later sets. Type I needn't have contained such cards. They could have been banned, resulting in a Type I that doesn't require a "few thousands". But the DCI just has this total blind spot about banning cards. I think the DCI, when it was a small child, must have gotten bit by large dog that used to ban cards. In any event, the DCI went through Type I, Type 1.5, and Extended, all of which were necessary because the previous Type didn't ban the correct cards and only the correct cards. Extended bans WHOLE EXPANSIONS and ----->***STILL***<----- doesn't ban all the correct cards, because the DCI apparently never gets the point. Anyway, my point is that if you took all of the cards ever printed in Magic, banned the correct overpowered/undercosted group of them, you could have a decent "Type I" that didn't cost a "few thousands" to play in competitively. Card variety might still be an advantage and having a "Type II" might still be a reasonable second option for tournaments. But Type II doesn't have to be normal default game as it is now, owing to there be no other halfway fair alternative. (Ah well, slash-rant and all that...) Fred

Fred writes: >If it's the >rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull >the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back >on the turntable for another play. That would be sad. I missed that record and it completely eludes me why R2's in FN are a problem. It's a relatively specialized set; given what most people would want to buy R2's are perfect. To have enough for a set of R1's and some extras to play/trade with you'd have to buy a huge number of boxes. I like the independents, but two boxes is about enough. I could stand a third, but more would be material for the circular file. To have to buy 4 or 5 boxes - yuck. R1's in SW are OK since it's effectively a base set and supports 8 clans and 11 disciplines rather than 4 clans and 4 disciplines. There, 4+ boxes isn't torture. In general I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW expansions. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > Fred writes: > > >If it's the > >rare sheet and it has a few R1s and a lot of R2s, we can probably pull > >the Final Nights a-moanin'-and-a-wailin' record out and stick it back > >on the turntable for another play. That would be sad. > > I missed that record and it completely eludes me why R2's in > FN are a problem. It's a relatively specialized set; given > what most people would want to buy R2's are perfect. I'm sorry, but these sentences really make no sense to me. Please restate what you're trying to say. Sets where the rarest cards is 1) highly unusual - that is to say, there are only 8 R1s in the entire set; and 2) extremely rare in comparison to the most common card, in this case a C2 which is 14 times as common - the highest ratio in VtES up to that point (and sadly, matched in Bloodlines as well), is very awkward to collect, either for play purposes or for set collecting. It helps somewhat that none of the cards are that sought after for play purposes but only somewhat. It is my hope that they stick to all R2s in future for the smaller sets (200 cards or less) or print 100 rares on their 100-card cardsheets or fairly near to it on the larger sets. That way, if you want an R1, most of the packs you buy will contain an R1 that you'll have a chance of trading for the one you want. Trying to trade up and down rarity levels is hard. > In general I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW > expansions. I don't know why you think that. For me, it was probably the worst job of any VtES expansion, possibly excepting The Sabbat for a different reason. The rare scheme in The Sabbat was much better, but WotC did a horribly bad job of avoiding good rares. Fred

I have a question about Armor of Terra, since I can't recall seeing this way of wording a card before. The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order to put AoT on himself? I was also wondering if Spirit Summoning Chamber allows one to get Armor of Terra (and all the other Thaumaturgy outferior cards)? In short, does a "minion card that requires Thaumaturgy" mean, "a card which requires ONLY Thaumaturgy" or "a card that Thaumaturgy is one of the possible requirements". Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > I have a question about Armor of Terra, since I can't recall > seeing this way of wording a card before. > > The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a > slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the > Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version > above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that > intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH > the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the > card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as > well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order > to put AoT on himself? Yes. See also Taste of Vitae's "this vampire" requirement (rendering it unplayable by an ally). > I was also wondering if Spirit Summoning Chamber allows one to > get Armor of Terra (and all the other Thaumaturgy outferior > cards)? In short, does a "minion card that requires Thaumaturgy" > mean, "a card which requires ONLY Thaumaturgy" or "a card that > Thaumaturgy is one of the possible requirements". From the Bloodlines preview (Daughters): When played, the card counts as requiring the discipline being used (for effects that enhance or restrict cards that require certain disciplines). In the hand (or library or ash heap), the card can be considered to require either discipline (for effects that retrieve cards that require certain disciplines). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I have a question about Armor of Terra, since I can't recall > > seeing this way of wording a card before. > > > > The outferior version, Thaumaturgy, says: "Put this card on a > > slave Gargoyle you control". That's clear enough. But the > > Visceratika versions state, "As (the thaumaturgy version) version > > above, but put this card on this acting Gargoyle." Is that > > intended as an explicit Gargoyle clan requirement ALONG WITH > > the Visceratika requirement for the acting minion to play the > > card? Does a non-Gargoyle have to play clan impersonation as > > well as finding some way of coming up with Visceratika in order > > to put AoT on himself? > > Yes. See also Taste of Vitae's "this vampire" requirement (rendering > it unplayable by an ally). Ack. Didn't think of this last night. The outferior version refers to, "Slave Gargoyle". So since the Viseratika versions use the wording, "As above", is the Viseratika versions restricted to only _slave_ Gargoyles, as opposed to non-slave Gargoyles? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Card text: "but put this card on this acting Gargoyle". -- [ quoted text not captured ]

freds64_at_...@removethis.com writes: >I'm sorry, but these sentences really make no sense to me. Please >restate what you're trying to say. >Sets where the rarest cards is 1) highly unusual - that is to say, there >are only 8 R1s in the entire set; and 2) extremely rare in comparison to >the most common card, in this case a C2 which is 14 times as common - the >highest ratio in VtES up to that point (and sadly, matched in Bloodlines >as well), is very awkward to collect, either for play purposes or for >set collecting. It helps somewhat that none of the cards are that sought >after for play purposes but only somewhat. It is my hope that they stick >to all R2s in future for the smaller sets (200 cards or less) I've seen comments that WW got grief for having so many R2's in FN and that's why BL has so many R1s. If the complaint was that there *were* R1s in FN, I don't understand WW's reaction with BL. Anyway, you're not saying the R1-R2 distinction causes trouble, you're saying the R1-C2 coexistance causes trouble, and that has nothing to do with whether there are R2s. >> In general I think FN did the best job with the rare sheet of all the WW >> expansions. >I don't know why you think that. For me, it was probably the worst >job of any VtES expansion, possibly excepting The Sabbat for a different >reason. The rare scheme in The Sabbat was much better, but WotC did a >horribly bad job of avoiding good rares. FN did a good job of avoiding great rares. I haven't seen any rares where I went "That's Rare!?" - which I have with BL and SW. So Sutekh is a chase card. So? I can live without him. Yes, the set is as difficult to collect as a full expansion would be, but I don't see any particular reason why collecting should be easier with FN. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > I've seen comments that WW got grief for having so many R2's in FN > and that's why BL has so many R1s. If the complaint was that there > *were* R1s in FN, I don't understand WW's reaction with BL. Anyway, > you're not saying the R1-R2 distinction causes trouble, you're saying > the R1-C2 coexistance causes trouble, and that has nothing to do with > whether there are R2s. Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s. The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s. My take on the problem is that White Wolf is stuck with 100-card cardsheets. They apparently decided that the correct balance between rare, uncommon, and common was 1 to 1 to 1 so they divided their 162 new cards into 54 rares, 54 uncommons, and 54 commons. Unfortunately, this worked out rather badly, since they had just a few cards more than the 50 that would have resulted in 50 R2s. So we wind up with 8 "super-rares", cards that are hard to find in packs, not worth buying more packs for (because 92% of the time you get R2s that you already have enough of), and of extremely uncertain trade value. I think the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation to their customers. > FN did a good job of avoiding great rares. Yea, I'll second that. Now that I've had the benefit of most of year's experience with the expansion, I have to say that it hasn't been too bad of a problem. Which makes it pretty good - this being one of those things that you only notice what's wrong, not what's right. I'm also noticing that the cards I have unquenchable appetite for don't necessarily seem to be everybody's else's favorite Final Nights card, which is a good sign. Fred

freds64_at_...@removethis.com writes: >Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s. >The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they >were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s. You still have to buy 100 packs to get an R1, whether there's 100 R1s or 2. The others Rs are a disincentive to buy more if they're too common and an incentive if they're too rare. But if the Rs are drawing me to buy more there's a power rare problem. Without a power rare problem, the rarity of the other rares has no effect on the desirability of pack #90. It will be expected to contain 1 reasonably good rare, 3 reasonably good uncommons, etc. Also, with one of these supporting sets, few are going to want to buy far in excess of what's needed to collect one set. So, if you're a player/collector, you'll basically be unable to play with any R1s, unless you're a serious suitcase. Having R1s and R2s means a player/collector can buy enough for one set and still have some rares to play with. It's *better* than all R1s, albeit not necessarily better than all R2s. More R2s mean more to play with. >Unfortunately, this worked out rather badly, since they had >just a few cards more than the 50 that would have resulted in 50 R2s. So >we wind up with 8 "super-rares", cards that are hard to find in packs, not >worth buying more packs for (because 92% of the time you get R2s that you >already have enough of), and of extremely uncertain trade value. Collectors still need 100 packs for a set, with 100 R1s or 8. If R2 is too common for a card, that's a problem, but in principle no rarity is wrong for every card. If some FN R2s should have been R1, then that's something of a problem, but you can't expect every rarity to be perfect. Buying more packs is only a problem if the play cards lack the variety and desirability to support a 100-pack purchase, which I would agree makes R1's annoying for players. But, if such is the case, moving cards from U1 or C1 to R1 won't help. >I think >the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just >given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They >would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation >to their customers. Yeah, no R1s whatsoever is a different ballgame. I would agree with you on supporting sets like FN and BL. But chase cards do seem to help sell games, and if they don't impair game balance I've no problem with them. I'm content with a reason to want megaboxes without a requirement. 8 interesting non-killer not-in-quantity chase cards is IMO an extremely fair way to create demand for megaboxes without requirements. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > freds64_at_...@removethis.com writes: > > >Actually, the trouble was having a few R1s amongst a lot of R2s. > >The problem is that the R1s become more difficult to get than if they > >were R1s amongst a whole set full of R1s. > > You still have to buy 100 packs to get an R1, whether there's > 100 R1s or 2. The others Rs are a disincentive to buy more if > they're too common and an incentive if they're too rare. But if > the Rs are drawing me to buy more there's a power rare > problem. Without a power rare problem, the rarity of the > other rares has no effect on the desirability of pack #90. Maybe. But the rarity of the other rares have an effect on how *often* pack #90 gets purchased, and *that* is why a few R1s in a set with many R2s are harder to get than R1s in a set with all R1s. > Collectors still need 100 packs for a set, with 100 R1s or 8. If R2 > is too common for a card, that's a problem, but in principle no rarity > is wrong for every card. If some FN R2s should have been R1, then > that's something of a problem, but you can't expect every rarity to > be perfect. I'm making the assumption that all rarities are equally useful. Or at least, all rare cards, be they R1 or R2, are equally useful. If you have knowledge that the R1s were specifically selected to be less useful by a factor of exactly 2 in the game overall (ignoring the effect of collecting, which in truth is impossible to do) than the R2s on average, then I would agree that there's no problem. I don't see any reason to believe the R1s were more or less useful than the R2s on average in Final Nights, therefore I automatically see the difference as a problem. I think this aspect of rarity is extremely confusing but I think my generalization of the problem is the correct one. It's true that there's good evidence that rarity choices have been made to direct the cards needed in greater number towards the more common rarity levels. Unfortunately, such evidence is extremely crude and it's hard to say or see much beyond this extremely generalized statement. So while the more common cards do tend to be more useful in greater numbers than rarer cards, we can't really count on it. And in the vast majority of cases, not so much more useful that it justifies their extreme commonality in the set. (Which is to say, that rarity is generally a bad deal for CCG consumers, strictly speaking. Which we already knew.) By the time we get out to R1s and R2s, I just don't see any use in assuming there's a difference in utility unless there's really some extremely obvious, hard-to-dispute evidence. Which I don't think there is in Final Nights. > >I think > >the whole issue would have worked much more smoothly if they had just > >given up 4 rares to the uncommons and printed 16 U1s and 42 U2s. They > >would have sold a few less boxes but caused a great deal less irritation > >to their customers. > > Yeah, no R1s whatsoever is a different ballgame. I would agree with > you on supporting sets like FN and BL. But chase cards do > seem to help sell games, and if they don't impair game balance I've no > problem with them. Chase cards help sell games by creating the incentive to buy more unnecessary, unwanted additional cards people will get trying to get lucky and get the chase cards. This is actually extremely comparable to simply raising the price of a pack: it will generate more profit per pack for the manufacturer at the expense of the consumer. In this case, the manufacturer must provide the same amount of physical product for the same price. However, the nature of copying cards and producing packs being what it is, the manufacturer still winds up getting much better profit from its overhead which is probably much more important: game design and development, the development of the backstory (the years of work on its fiction and RPG lines), art, typesetting, and other types of overhead. And the players get less usable product on average in the end from each pack of cards. > 8 interesting non-killer not-in-quantity chase cards is > IMO an extremely fair way to create demand for megaboxes without > requirements. I'm sorry, I disagree. I think chase cards that are functionally different from all other existing cards are a very poor choice for generating revenue in the end. They only frustrate and annoy players even if they're only moderately useful. And in CCGs, it's very hard to guarantee in the design phase of a set that they don't turn out to be power rares once they're in the hands of players struggling to invent the best decks. This is a very dangerous thing to play around with, IMHO. Fred

>FN did a good job of avoiding great rares. I haven't seen any rares >where I went "That's Rare!?" - which I have with BL and SW. So Sutekh >is a chase card. So? I can live without him. Yes, the set is as difficult >to collect as a full expansion would be, but I don't see any particular >reason why collecting should be easier with FN. I don't think trying to collect any set (ignoring such things as collecting foil versions of cards for games with foils) should be hard. But, certainly collecting a small expansion, which I consider FN to be, shouldn't be difficult at all. Problem isn't FN or any one small expansion. Problem is that it becomes very tiresome to constantly have to get a bunch of cards you aren't interested in just to try and get a set or just to compete. And, while it's certainly possible for WW to make R1s (for a set that has both R1s and R2s) that aren't particularly good so people don't have to have them, I wouldn't put any vampire in that category. For FN, I calculated 4 boxes was the right number to try for a set sans significant trading. After 4 boxes, I was one R1 short, as I recall. Rather than be happy that I was on target, I was annoyed that it was as bad as I expected. For some reason, I consider expecting to need 4 boxes for a set with 54 rares a bad thing. As for the R1 I was missing, next to no chance I could trade for it, not to say someone in a different situation couldn't have. For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes. Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020513141301...@mb-cg.aol.com... > > For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good > amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes. > Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up > turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might > even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick. > You're ignoring a much more important aspect of this... I buy packs in order to get cards to use in decks. I don't buy them for 1 card, I buy a pack for 11 cards (or however many might be in a particular pack... the more the better ;) ). The biggest problem with FN is that the commons, in general, suck. Sure, I could use 6 Ecstasy's and 4 Zillah's Valleys, but once I've got that, I don't need to be buying more packs. I certainly don't need 10 Banners of Neutrality, or *any* Extortions. If I'm buying packs to get enough rares, 4+ boxes would be a good amount, but since the commons get old after 1/2 a box, that's all I'm buying. If, on the contrary, 1-2 boxes would be good to have enough rares, I might continue buying cards after the 1/2 box where commons are useful - there's a goal in sight, and it's not ridiculously far away. But there's no way I'm buying a couple hundred cards at $3 a piece. That's just ludicrous. Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN and give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset and frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably more people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and just quit early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal. Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the last card? Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you already have too many copies of, right? If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what that card is?

>Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the >last card? Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect >to >at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you >already have too many copies of, right? If packs were a buck, or 50 cents >like >Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what >that >card is? I lament how worthless commons are (dollarwise). But, the industry, in general, has adopted a sales approach that only makes "the last card" (whether it/they in the case of rare+foil is/are last or not) important. Because people will buy lots of boxes to get the rares (ultrarares, foils, autographs, etc.) they want. If you can really ignore the existence of rares, you're set up pretty well. I'd love to unload 1000s of extra commons for CCGs (the ones with card limits for the most part, though some of the more worthless in multiples cards in this game can go too). More useful to someone looking for these sorts of cards, as I'm not going to pay to ship the crap, common and uncommon sets on eBay or common/uncommon singles are cheap and not difficult to get.

Chris Berger wrote: > > For a set with ~50 rares, I should expect 3 boxes (108 rares) to be a good > > amount. But, with the R1s, I consider a good amount of FN to be 5 boxes. > > Should WW be happy about this? Short run, sure. But, long run, you end up > > turning off people who think preordering 4+ boxes is a big deal. You might > > even turn off people who don't as they just get tired of the R1 gimmick. > > > You're ignoring a much more important aspect of this... I buy packs in order > to get cards to use in decks. I don't buy them for 1 card, I buy a pack for 11 > cards (or however many might be in a particular pack... the more the better > ;) ). The biggest problem with FN is that the commons, in general, suck. > Sure, I could use 6 Ecstasy's and 4 Zillah's Valleys, but once I've got that, I > don't need to be buying more packs. I certainly don't need 10 Banners of > Neutrality, or *any* Extortions. If I'm buying packs to get enough rares, 4+ > boxes would be a good amount, but since the commons get old after 1/2 a box, > that's all I'm buying. If, on the contrary, 1-2 boxes would be good to have > enough rares, I might continue buying cards after the 1/2 box where commons are > useful - there's a goal in sight, and it's not ridiculously far away. But > there's no way I'm buying a couple hundred cards at $3 a piece. That's just > ludicrous. Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of money on more cards. Getting a few good rare cards isn't worth buying several boxes. Anyone who disagrees with this either has much more disposable income than the average person, or they are kind of obsessed with the game (and those people don't count). What we are talking about here is whether or not most people are going to be happy with their purchase every time they buy a few packs of cards (new players and long-term players alike). An expansion set that gets old or boring after someone buys 1/2 a box of cards is a poorly constructed expansion. Every single pack of cards should have several cards that are great.... period. Good commons, even better uncommons, and amazing rares. Personally, I would like White Wolf to come out with a "greatest hits" expansion. This would include all the best cards on each of the three main levels (common, uncommon, rare) from all the older expansions. However, I also think this might be boring for long-term players. That's why I suggested that White Wolf start publishing new cards in place of some of the old ones that are still useful. Who needs another Bastard Sword? Why not create something else instead?? How about a Hunting Knife or Switch Blade that is similar to a Bastard Sword, but has a small distinguishing feature (ex. cold steel weapon, breaks when used against Skin of Steel, can only be used twice in one combat, etc.) Why not apply this kind of logic to other cards as well? I realize that making new cards with similar mechanics as other cards may be a little weak, but it's much better than creating more "throw away" cards or simply reprinting the same old stuff. I believe that every new expansion is a great opportunity to fill in the gaps that currently exist in the game while also creating new dynamics and strategies. I am hoping that White Wolf will continue to make better and better expansion sets so the game will continually improve. Here are some suggestions: - Find out which cards people are actually using in the game - Create more cards that are truly useful (without throwing off the balance) - Develop the role playing aspect of the game a bit more (more options) - Include more objects, locations, and characters that are a common part of life (cars, buses, toll booths, coffee shops, health clubs, bums, prostitutes, lawyers, firemen, swat team, helicopters, private jets, limos, kitchen knives, lead pipes, baseball bats, etc) The main problem I see with various expansion sets is how quickly they become boring. The real trick is finding the balance between a truly useful card and a card that is too powerful. White Wolf has occasionally created cards that cost a little too much (blood or pool), aren't quite powerful enough, or apply to very limited circumstances, and they end up being completely useless. And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players alike. Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them thought it was kind of fun. But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's like a financial black hole. If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a box of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards that are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards for myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf doesn't make it more accessible to the average person. Frustrated in Houston, Howard PS Here are some of the cards I am hoping to see in future expansions. Either these specific cards or something else that is similar: Blood Dolls Wakes Taste of vitae Psyche Immortal grapple Torn signpost Apportation Awe Entrancement Majesty Precognition Telepathic misdirection Eagles sight Rolling with the punches Freak drive Disarm Spying mission Behind you Forgotten labyrinth Govern the unaligned Obedience Body flare Breath of the dragon Second tradition Shroud of night Shroud of absence Eyes of the night Carrion crows Shadow step The fifth tradition Temptation of a greater power Derange Magic of the smith Dog pack Recruiting party Gang tactics Raptor Judgement: Camarilla Segregation The Hungry Coyote Powerbase Montreal KRCG Rumor Mill Sudden Reversal Smiling Jack Giants Blood Rottshreck Ivory Bow What do you guys think? Which of these cards are worth reprinting? What cards did I leave out? And more importantly, how could White Wolf make new cards with similar attributes and effects? > Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN and > give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset and > frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably more > people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and just quit > early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal. > > Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the > last card? No, you're not alone on that one. Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to > at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you > already have too many copies of, right? Exactly. Although I hope that even the commons are useful. If they aren't, then it is just a waste of time and money. If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like > Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what that > card is? I totally agree. You've hit the nail on the head.

Chris Berger wrote: > You're ignoring a much more important aspect of this... I buy packs in order > to get cards to use in decks. I don't buy them for 1 card, I buy a pack for 11 > cards (or however many might be in a particular pack... the more the better > ;) ). The biggest problem with FN is that the commons, in general, suck. > Sure, I could use 6 Ecstasy's and 4 Zillah's Valleys, but once I've got that, I > don't need to be buying more packs. I certainly don't need 10 Banners of > Neutrality, or *any* Extortions. If I'm buying packs to get enough rares, 4+ > boxes would be a good amount, but since the commons get old after 1/2 a box, > that's all I'm buying. If, on the contrary, 1-2 boxes would be good to have > enough rares, I might continue buying cards after the 1/2 box where commons are > useful - there's a goal in sight, and it's not ridiculously far away. But > there's no way I'm buying a couple hundred cards at $3 a piece. That's just > ludicrous. That's the CCG business. Yes, you're basically paying $3 a pack and the critical scarce resource is the one card in that pack. I agree that getting useful common cards is an important bonus and highly variable, but I don't see that Final Nights is particularly remarkable either way in this sense. For whatever reason, it seems like we players will be continually doomed to wonder what the hell the designers were thinking when they issued a _lot_ of cards - a lot more wallpaper cards than we think are necessary. And a few overpowered ones. I'd like to say someone was absolutely hallucinating when they costed Tortured Confession at one blood. Hell, it probably wouldn't see much play if it granted the vampire playing it blood yet someone figured out somehow that it should *cost* a blood. Stuff like that makes me want to bang my head on the table. But from playing Magic, Jyhad, and other games for years, I guess there's not much stopping this because all the games seem to do it and the accumulated affect of such things really fucks up the value of the game. I've never noticed that it's limited to commons, rares, or any particular rarity level, expansion, or anything else. There's just going to be some bad cards in every box or booster. Fred

>Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful >commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to >creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla >Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many >people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much >better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of >money on more cards. I don't think anyone wants useless commons and uncommons. But, commons and uncommons don't drive sales. In order for them to do so, would have to make them relatively rarer. The (strong) tendency is for customers to chase after the rarest cards. For instance, one thing I'd like to see is instead of a set being about one third of each rarity to see a set have proportionately more commons than uncommons than rares. For a 150 card set, something like 60/50/40 c/u/r. I don't expect it to happen all that often, though. Where's the value to the company? Will it really get more players into the game to have this sort of rarity scheme? >Here are some suggestions: > >- Create more cards that are truly useful > (without throwing off the balance) I don't think anyone would argue with this. >The main problem I see with various expansion sets is how quickly they >become boring. Really? Boring isn't the word I'd choose for most CCG expansions. >And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to >spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. >Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players >alike. > >Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs >too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of >the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had >a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood >counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one >of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their >wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly >interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them >thought it was kind of fun. > >But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes >to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a >lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my >frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow >the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each >of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have >to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to >make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more >money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting >any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's >like a financial black hole. It would be extremely difficult to convince me that WW is getting rich off this game. At the same time, CCGs have made companies profits. Price seems fine to me. It's not a more expensive hobby than a lot of others. >Frustrated in Houston, >Howard > >PS Here are some of the cards I am hoping to see in future >expansions. Either these specific cards or something else that is >similar: > >Blood Dolls >Wakes >Taste of vitae >Psyche >Immortal grapple >Torn signpost >Apportation >Awe >Entrancement >Majesty >Precognition >Telepathic misdirection >Eagles sight >Rolling with the punches >Freak drive >Disarm >Spying mission >Behind you >Forgotten labyrinth >Govern the unaligned >Obedience >Body flare >Breath of the dragon >Second tradition >Shroud of night >Shroud of absence >Eyes of the night >Carrion crows >Shadow step Shadow Step would be nice. I have my doubts, though. What would have made sense to me would have been to reprint some of the good cards from Sabbat that didn't get reprinted rather than new cards for those disciplines in FN. Much rather have SSs than Shadow Parasites, someone I'm sure would rather have had Deranges than Denys, and so forth. >The fifth tradition >Temptation of a greater power >Derange >Magic of the smith >Dog pack >Recruiting party >Gang tactics >Raptor >Judgement: Camarilla Segregation >The Hungry Coyote >Powerbase Montreal >KRCG >Rumor Mill >Sudden Reversal >Smiling Jack >Giants Blood >Rottshreck >Ivory Bow > > >What do you guys think? Which of these cards are worth reprinting? > >What cards did I leave out? Kind of an effort to figure out every last card I'd like to see get reprinted. I'd agree with a lot of these. >And more importantly, how could White Wolf make new cards with similar >attributes and effects? Easily? I'm not precisely sure what you are getting at, but why would you want cards similar to existing ones? > Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to >> at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you >> already have too many copies of, right? > > >Exactly. Although I hope that even the commons are useful. If they >aren't, then it is just a waste of time and money. One can always hope that every card is a good card. I believe it's possible, but it requires a lot of work, a level of work that isn't likely to get made as it doesn't translate well enough to the bottom line. > If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like >> Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what >that >> card is? > > >I totally agree. You've hit the nail on the head. Didn't really get this the first time around. I'm interpreting the comment as: a CCG booster is worth $3 if you get multiple good cards but not worth $3 if the only card that has value is the rare since I don't get to pick a rare I want to have. Except, this flies in the face of how the industry has worked. It's the gambling aspect that has produced a lot of the buying frenzy. If you really don't care about the rares, find someone who does and get them to give you all of their worthless commons and uncommons. Assuming there's enough of a player (or collector) base nearby, this shouldn't be difficult at all.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020518205851...@mb-mj.aol.com... > > Didn't really get this the first time around. I'm interpreting the comment as: > a CCG booster is worth $3 if you get multiple good cards but not worth $3 if > the only card that has value is the rare since I don't get to pick a rare I > want to have. Except, this flies in the face of how the industry has worked. > It's the gambling aspect that has produced a lot of the buying frenzy. If you > really don't care about the rares, find someone who does and get them to give > you all of their worthless commons and uncommons. Assuming there's enough of a > player (or collector) base nearby, this shouldn't be difficult at all. > I *do* care about the rare, but I don't care $3 about the rare, if it's gonna be a random card. I'd buy singles if that's what I wanted. A pack of Jyhad, at $1 or $2, will generally give me a rare that might be useful, a bunch of commons and vampires that aren't useful, and 3 uncommons, one of which will almost always be useful. This is after buying about 6 boxes of the set, and the uncommons are still worthwhile. A pack of FN at $3 will give me a bunch of useless commons, since half the commons in the set are crappy, and the rest I already have too many of because there are only 54 commons; 3 vampires that I already have at least 2 copies of; and 1 rare that more than likely will not be useful to me. But even if the rare was useful, a $3 gamble on one card is crap. And this is after a little less than a box worth. BL still has commons that I need after a little over a box worth - one thing the set did right, despite having a hefty power-rare problem. SW is mostly reprints, so there, the commons aren't useful to me, but would be for new players. AH and DS, well... I only had 1 box of DS and 1/2 a box of AH until recently, but when I got another box of each, they were primarily useful useful cards throughout the packs. If I completely exhaust the useful commons and uncommons after 1/2 a box, there is something seriously wrong with me if I continue buying the 4 boxes necessary to get all the rares. It's a sickness, and I think if you buy packs this way, you should seek help. WW could print an expansion with 299 crappy useless cards that all cost 5 blood and 3 pool, and one R1 card that said: "Master: You win." and cost 0 pool, and some people would buy the 80 boxes of cards necessary to get 54 copies of it and assure being able to play it first turn.

> Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful > commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to > creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla > Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many > people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much > better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of > money on more cards. Are you on crack? I mean really.... Aren't Blood Dolls common and Minion Taps uncommon? Who doesn't need more of those? > > Getting a few good rare cards isn't worth buying several boxes. > Anyone who disagrees with this either has much more disposable income > than the average person, or they are kind of obsessed with the game > (and those people don't count). I don't normally think that the rares are all that. Set's Call anyone? They are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that you really need. > > What we are talking about here is whether or not most people are going > to be happy with their purchase every time they buy a few packs of > cards (new players and long-term players alike). An expansion set > that gets old or boring after someone buys 1/2 a box of cards is a > poorly constructed expansion. Every single pack of cards should have > several cards that are great.... period. Good commons, even better > uncommons, and amazing rares. Did you have this experience recently? Generally in Vampire it is the exact opposite. There are amazing commons, good uncommons and okay rares. Generally, rarity is based on usage. If you commmonly use it, then it will be common. If is is uncommonly used then it will be uncommon. If it will rarely be used then it is rare. > Personally, I would like White Wolf to come out with a "greatest hits" > expansion. This would include all the best cards on each of the three > main levels (common, uncommon, rare) from all the older expansions. > However, I also think this might be boring for long-term players. > That's why I suggested that White Wolf start publishing new cards in > place of some of the old ones that are still useful. Who needs > another Bastard Sword? Why not create something else instead?? How > about a Hunting Knife or Switch Blade that is similar to a Bastard > Sword, but has a small distinguishing feature (ex. cold steel weapon, > breaks when used against Skin of Steel, can only be used twice in one > combat, etc.) Why not apply this kind of logic to other cards as > well? Haven't we had alot of this recently? I was quite impressed with it. > I realize that making new cards with similar mechanics as other cards > may be a little weak, but it's much better than creating more "throw > away" cards or simply reprinting the same old stuff. So what you are saying is that you would be okay with reprinting Poker but not Bastard Sword. How is making new cards with similar mechanics that much different from reprinting the old cards? > I believe that every new expansion is a great opportunity to fill in > the gaps that currently exist in the game while also creating new > dynamics and strategies. I am hoping that White Wolf will continue to > make better and better expansion sets so the game will continually > improve. I actually think that they have done an excellent job so far. > Here are some suggestions: > > - Find out which cards people are actually using in the game > > - Create more cards that are truly useful > (without throwing off the balance) > > - Develop the role playing aspect of the game a bit more > (more options) I believe that almost every clan is fleshed out while sticking to the storyline. I must say that I think that is pretty incredible. > - Include more objects, locations, and characters that are a common > part of life (cars, buses, toll booths, coffee shops, health clubs, > bums, prostitutes, lawyers, firemen, swat team, helicopters, private > jets, limos, kitchen knives, lead pipes, baseball bats, etc) The first question you need to ask yourself is "How do these interact with vampires at a level where they are relative to world domination?" > The main problem I see with various expansion sets is how quickly they > become boring. Which expansion, how did they get boring, and which cards are you talking about? The real trick is finding the balance between a truly > useful card and a card that is too powerful. White Wolf has > occasionally created cards that cost a little too much (blood or > pool), aren't quite powerful enough, or apply to very limited > circumstances, and they end up being completely useless. Like what? You need to back up your generalizations with a little fact. > And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to > spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. > Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players > alike. They should realize that buying one booster pack will not create a playable deck. However if you buy a box you will get several playable decks, so it may be worth it for two friends to split a box. > Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs > too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of > the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had > a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood > counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one > of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their > wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly > interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them > thought it was kind of fun. > > But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes > to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a > lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my > frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow > the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each > of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have > to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to > make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more > money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting > any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's > like a financial black hole. Dude, that is weak. Unbelievable, you carry the cards around and teach people how to play, then when they are interested in the game you tell them how much it sucks. Which not only makes the game, but you look bad. You do not have to justify other people's actions. That is for lawyers and philosophers. You should just let them continue playing with your cards until they feel like they have enough grasp of the game to buy a starter. After they buy a starter then you can help them with their deckbuilding theory with all those hundreds of spare cards you have. > If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a box > of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out > that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards that > are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards for > myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf > doesn't make it more accessible to the average person. Then walk. Nobody likes ultimatums being thrown around especially one's based upon such unsupported drivel that you have been tossing around in this post. Create a position and support it. Everything I heard above is "Waaaah, I am missing a card. I quit!". It is a card game you are never going to have all the cards you want. > Frustrated in Houston, > Howard Howard, I really enjoyed our game in Houston, but I think your frustration stems more from a small player base than anything about the cards. You need to build your player base by telling people how fun the game is. > PS Here are some of the cards I am hoping to see in future > expansions. Either these specific cards or something else that is > similar: > > Blood Dolls This card is Common and there are two in every starter > Wakes This card is Common and there are 2 in every starter or 2 Forced Awakenings > Taste of vitae This card is rare but can be found in the !Brujah starter > Psyche This card is uncommon but two can be found in the Assimite starter > Immortal grapple This card is uncommon and can be found in both the Giovanni and !Brujah starters > Torn signpost This card is uncommon and is found in the !Brujah starter > Apportation A Sabbat only uncommon. > Awe a rare that is easily substitited with Bewitching Oration and in most cases is inferior to Bewitching Oration. > Entrancement a rare that targets allies. talk about corner case. > Majesty Common as salt water > Precognition a common card > Telepathic misdirection a common card > Eagles sight an uncommon > Rolling with the punches a common card in three sets > Freak drive a rare and a damn good one. I would say this is one of the few power rares in the whole game. Hopefully they will make this uncommon. > Disarm another rare and a damn good one. I would say this is one of the few power rares in the whole game. Hopefully they will make this uncommon > Spying mission uncommon > Behind you a rare which is very cornercase. > Forgotten labyrinth an uncommon in three sets > Govern the unaligned a common in every set that included dominate as minion cards > Obedience an uncommon > Body flare a rare that is cornercase. There are better cards for the cost > Breath of the dragon a rare card that is in the Tzimice starter. > Second tradition a really good uncommon > Shroud of night a common card > Shroud of absence a dual discipline rare card that combines the function of the inferior of two common cards. I would say this alone makes it corner case. > Eyes of the night a common > Carrion crows a common > Shadow step a sabbat only rare that has plenty of substitutes in the form of maneuvers > The fifth tradition a good uncommon > Temptation of a greater power a cornercase rare that is very dangerous to use > Derange a Sabbat only rare which is useful mainly for removing prince's titles > Magic of the smith a rare Thaumaturgy card that gets equipment. Cornercase > Dog pack a rare Gangrel-only retainer. Corner case > Recruiting party a rare that should have been uncommon > Gang tactics a !Nos card that is only useful in IG decks > Raptor a raven spy that costs twice as much and helps your opponent cycle their hand. Corner-case unless you can use a minion with 7 of them. > Judgement: Camarilla Segregation an uncommon from DS. Get 'em while you can. > The Hungry Coyote a rare card > Powerbase Montreal a rare card > KRCG an uncommon > Rumor Mill an uncommon > Sudden Reversal an uncommon > Smiling Jack a rare which must be protected as the whole table should come after it. > Giants Blood a one-per-game rare. appropriately so > Rottshreck an uncommon > Ivory Bow a rare > > > What do you guys think? Which of these cards are worth reprinting? I think you have listed twenty rares out of 46 cards which in fact out of all of them only 8 of which have not been reprinted at least once. > What cards did I leave out? I think you left out about 500 cards that are all good and worthy > > And more importantly, how could White Wolf make new cards with similar > attributes and effects? Why do they need to do that? So we can institute a card limit? Neither of which are nessasary. We want new ideas not recycled ideas. > > > Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN and > > give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset and > > frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably more > > people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and just quit > > early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal. I am quite happy with my multi-box purchase of Final Night. I can build that Ravnos deck I alway wanted. :) > > Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just the > > last card? > No, you're not alone on that one. > I wouldn't say you are alone, but why you are not building decks out of your commons and uncommons rather than looking for the rares?> > Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to > > at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that you > > already have too many copies of, right? > > Exactly. Although I hope that even the commons are useful. If they > aren't, then it is just a waste of time and money. > At this point in time you two should probably be trading if you are only looking for a card or two rather than buying more cards. You might each have what the other wants. > If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like > > Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know what that > > card is? > > > I totally agree. You've hit the nail on the head. You need to think about your problems. They can be solved without spending more money. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3CCEB7FC...@removethis.com>... > Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > > > Magic *needed* type II because the costs of > > competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting > > insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at > > the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars. > > This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading > > towards. > > That's not really the whole story. Another part of it was the same thing > WotC/the DCI absolutely refused to do with V:tES also: ban cards. Ante cards, Chaos Orb, Falling Star, and a few other cards were banned early on. Mind Twist being one of them. The other power cards were restricted in general. > print such cards in later sets. Type I needn't have contained such cards. > They could have been banned, resulting in a Type I that doesn't require a > "few thousands". Even if you take away the power nine et al, you are left with Type 1.5, which is still prohibitively expensive. You try getting Juzam Djinn, Erhnam Djinn, etc. on the cheap heh. They reprinted Erhnam, much to a certain local's chagrin, but quite a few other powerful cards from the older expansions were not reprinted. > But the DCI just has this total blind spot about banning > cards. Probably because they don't like to ban cards whenever possible. It is annoying to open packs to find your rare is banned and therefore useless. > Anyway, my point is that if you took all of the cards ever printed in Magic, > banned the correct overpowered/undercosted group of them, you could have a > decent "Type I" that didn't cost a "few thousands" to play in competitively. Except that it wouldn't allow the older, more powerful cards to see use, which would screw everyone who actually bothered getting those cards.

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d48G8.20$mG.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > > > > > What we are talking about here is whether or not most people are going > > to be happy with their purchase every time they buy a few packs of > > cards (new players and long-term players alike). An expansion set > > that gets old or boring after someone buys 1/2 a box of cards is a > > poorly constructed expansion. Every single pack of cards should have > > several cards that are great.... period. Good commons, even better > > uncommons, and amazing rares. > > Did you have this experience recently? Generally in Vampire it is the exact > opposite. There are amazing commons, good uncommons and okay rares. > Generally, rarity is based on usage. If you commmonly use it, then it will > be common. If is is uncommonly used then it will be uncommon. If it will > rarely be used then it is rare. > Yes, it is supposed to be that way. This was not the case in Bloodlines, by any means. Many bloodlines are very hard to play without multiples of their rare discipline cards. Some are just much *better* with multiples of their rare discipline cards, although playable without. FN had a little bit of this problem as well, with a number of very crummy commons (some good commons, too, but with only 54 in the set, it's very easy to have all the commons you need, and even easier to have plenty of uncommons, since they're all vampires), and a few "chase" rares. There have always been a few "mistakes" in rarity, like Freak Drive, but lately the mistakes seem to be getting worse, and intentional.

> There have always been a few "mistakes" in rarity, like Freak Drive, but lately > the mistakes seem to be getting worse, and intentional. You won't hear an argument from me about some of the rarity issues in Bloodlines. I am still trying to make a feasible Gargoyle deck. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Scritch-Scratcher of the Gargoyles

Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3CCEB7FC...@removethis.com>... > > Shaun McIsaac wrote: > > > > > > Magic *needed* type II because the costs of > > > competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting > > > insane. If you bought all the cards to a brand new type II deck (at > > > the time this was happening) it might cost you a few hundred dollars. > > > This was much prefered over the few thousands type I was heading > > > towards. > > > > That's not really the whole story. Another part of it was the same thing > > WotC/the DCI absolutely refused to do with V:tES also: ban cards. > > Ante cards, Chaos Orb, Falling Star, and a few other cards were banned > early on. Mind Twist being one of them. The other power cards were > restricted in general. That's kind of a side issue. Yes, they were not about to legally defend the concept of gambling in a constructed format (meaning people would gamble valuable cards they had owned before the tournament); yes, they had the good sense to ban the same stupid sort of Madness of the Bard type cards Garfield had stuck in Magic (finally, after a couple of years of trying to allow them); yes, certain cards were _so_ bad even the DCI couldn't ignore them. But they still didn't (and don't) understand the necessity of banning cards that are significantly out whack in terms of the general balance of power that most of the other cards top out at. > > > print such cards in later sets. Type I needn't have contained such cards. > > They could have been banned, resulting in a Type I that doesn't require a > > "few thousands". > > Even if you take away the power nine et al, you are left with Type > 1.5, which is still prohibitively expensive. You try getting Juzam > Djinn, Erhnam Djinn, etc. on the cheap heh. They reprinted Erhnam, > much to a certain local's chagrin, but quite a few other powerful > cards from the older expansions were not reprinted. I'm not sure where we're failing to communicate, here. Obviously, you ban those cards, too. It took WotC a good couple of years and several editions and expansions before they finally got the concept of checking for power balance in cards before printing them through their thick skulls. Therefore, even though the first three printings were the worst (Alpha/Beta/Unlimited), they were still printing cards that in a true all-editions-allowed constructed deckbuilding environment need to banned as late as fourth edition. (And a few sporadic others later on which were just occasional pure mistakes.) But that's what the situation is. So if a card needs to banned, you ban it. This means the banned list needs to number in the dozens of cards, possibly over 100. I don't know, I've never sat down and tried to count how many it would be. But if that's what you need to do to make the game work, don't freak out over it. Just do it. > > But the DCI just has this total blind spot about banning > > cards. > > Probably because they don't like to ban cards whenever possible. It > is annoying to open packs to find your rare is banned and therefore > useless. I can understand that. Unfortunately, it screws up the game to allow such cards. Period. So that point really doesn't matter. Well, it does matter to the extent that you look long and hard and very seriously about which cards actually need to be banned. You don't ban capriciously or lightly. It's just that when it needs to be done, you better do it. > > Anyway, my point is that if you took all of the cards ever printed in Magic, > > banned the correct overpowered/undercosted group of them, you could have a > > decent "Type I" that didn't cost a "few thousands" to play in competitively. > > Except that it wouldn't allow the older, more powerful cards to see > use, which would screw everyone who actually bothered getting those > cards. Another sad story. But unfortunately, not as important as not allowing ANYONE to use cards older than two years (or whatever Type 2 is now) without having to play this sucky, non-working unbalanced game. The thing is, all these issues about not wanting to ban cards sound sad and unfortunate and I really sympathize with the victims and everything. But they're just not as important in the end as the need to ban cards and actually have a real game at all. Fred

> > dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > What if they introduced some mechanism that prevented Jyhad/V:TES set > > vampires from being mixed in crypts with the new Camarilla set? > > mpm...@attbi.com (Shaun McIsaac) wrote: > This is a hideous idea. Magic *needed* type II because the costs of > competing in (what would become) type I tournaments was getting > insane. The Type I/II thing and what I brought up are apples and oranges. As I understand it, you can't use older cards at all in Type II. This is to keep up the marketing machine of Magic. Even WotC stores are actively discouraged from hosting Type I events. Despite P.R. to the contrary and coincindetal side effects, this had nothing to do with the cost of competing in tournaments. It had everything to do with incentive to buy new cards. What I suggested was not a banning of cards at all. You could still build a crypt with existing vampires. You just couldn't mix the ones from the VTES/Jyhad sets with the ones from the upcoming expansion. Note that this doesn't affect DS, AH, Sabbat, SW, FN or BL. They would mix fine. It also doesn't prohibit using an all Jyhad/VTES crypt with newer library cards. Now whether this would preserve playability of the older vampires or not if some of the vampires in the new set are significantly better, I can't decide. But banning them outright certainly would. It would certainly have a negative impact on Legbiter's Betrayer deck, I don't know what else that it would impact. Other than that, strategies available now would still be just as playable. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

>But that's what the situation is. So if a card needs to banned, you ban it. >This means the banned list needs to number in the dozens of cards, possibly >over 100. I don't know, I've never sat down and tried to count how many it >would be. But if that's what you need to do to make the game work, don't >freak out over it. Just do it. Or, you do something brilliant like rotate cards out of the environment then bring back ones that aren't overpowered, overpowered in combination with new cards, or rulings nightmares. I don't think Magic had any choice but to come up with environments that only allowed limited numbers of sets. Nor do I think any other CCG has that choice after a certain point, a point that often comes later for CCGs without as many card interaction problems as Magic. Mass bannings on the level required to deal with CCG bloat would not be worth the effort. For one thing, you can bring back retired cards or you can make new cards that are functionally similar to retired cards.

Curevei wrote: > > >But that's what the situation is. So if a card needs to banned, you ban it. > >This means the banned list needs to number in the dozens of cards, possibly > >over 100. I don't know, I've never sat down and tried to count how many it > >would be. But if that's what you need to do to make the game work, don't > >freak out over it. Just do it. > > Or, you do something brilliant like rotate cards out of the environment then > bring back ones that aren't overpowered, overpowered in combination with new > cards, or rulings nightmares. I'm not sure how that turns out to be "brilliant". How many cards got banned in that manner which were not the least bit overpowered? How many cards got banned that actually deserved to get banned? From where I'm standing, that's using an atomic bomb to destroy a rat's nest. The list of cards requiring banning may have numbered over 100, but the last rules on Extended I know about, probably got many times that number. AND THEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HIT SOME OF THE CARDS THAT *STILL* NEEDED TO BE BANNED AND WEREN'T!!! (E.g., the last rules on Extended I knew about still allowed multilands because 4th Edition was still one of the allowed sets.) What is the benefit of this policy supposed to be?!? > I don't think Magic had any choice but to come up with environments that only > allowed limited numbers of sets. Sure they do. They can ban the overpowered cards AND ONLY the overpowered cards. The way you're talking about seems worse in every respect by any reasonable standard I can think of except one: they don't have to defend which cards they select to be banned. In short, it's the coward's way out of doing the hard work they should be doing to fix their own screwups. I do agree that a set rotation format is probably called for for other reasons: to allow for people to enter the game without having to go out and hunt down five-year old cards to make a reasonable deck. In short, Type 2 strikes as a good concept for recent recruits and anyone else who doesn't mind continually buying relatively large numbers of recent cards. But it shouldn't be the only balanced format in the game because that leads to the dilemma Magic players have now: either keep up with Type 2 or buy the precious cards required in the other formats. > Mass bannings on the level required to deal with CCG bloat would not be worth > the effort. For one thing, you can bring back retired cards or you can make > new cards that are functionally similar to retired cards. I'm not sure what this means. Reprint Moxen? No one cares much about Fire Diamonds in a format where they (and their opponent) can play a Mox Ruby. I have nothing against the reprint of balanced cards, but it's not the issue and doesn't solve the same problems that banning does. Fred

>> >But that's what the situation is. So if a card needs to banned, you ban >it. >> >This means the banned list needs to number in the dozens of cards, >possibly >> >over 100. I don't know, I've never sat down and tried to count how many >it >> >would be. But if that's what you need to do to make the game work, don't >> >freak out over it. Just do it. >> >> Or, you do something brilliant like rotate cards out of the environment >then >> bring back ones that aren't overpowered, overpowered in combination with >new >> cards, or rulings nightmares. > >I'm not sure how that turns out to be "brilliant". How many cards got banned >in that manner which were not the least bit overpowered? How many cards got >banned that actually deserved to get banned? From where I'm standing, that's >using an atomic bomb to destroy a rat's nest. I've yet to find a CCG where every card was worth playing. A significant percentage of the cards you are saying don't deserve to be banned are effectively banned by being too weak or too boring to play. The ones that are balanced and interesting have a good chance of getting reprinted, assuming anything gets reprinted. I'm not suggesting retiring cards (by rotating them out of some environment) is ideal. It's simply a more elegant way of keeping the game under control both from a balance perspective and a rulings one. >The list of cards requiring >banning may have numbered over 100, but the last rules on Extended I know >about, probably got many times that number. AND THEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HIT >SOME OF THE CARDS THAT *STILL* NEEDED TO BE BANNED AND WEREN'T!!! (E.g., the >last rules on Extended I knew about still allowed multilands because 4th >Edition was still one of the allowed sets.) What is the benefit of this >policy supposed to be?!? Extended will start using a rotation format when the next stand alone comes in. >> I don't think Magic had any choice but to come up with environments that >only >> allowed limited numbers of sets. > >Sure they do. They can ban the overpowered cards AND ONLY the overpowered >cards. >The way you're talking about seems worse in every respect by any reasonable >standard I can think of except one: they don't have to defend which cards >they >select to be banned. In short, it's the coward's way out of doing the hard >work >they should be doing to fix their own screwups. > >I do agree that a set rotation format is probably called for for other >reasons: >to allow for people to enter the game without having to go out and hunt down >five-year old cards to make a reasonable deck. In short, Type 2 strikes as a >good concept for recent recruits and anyone else who doesn't mind continually >buying relatively large numbers of recent cards. But it shouldn't be the >only >balanced format in the game because that leads to the dilemma Magic players >have now: either keep up with Type 2 or buy the precious cards required in >the other formats. If they never brought back any of the old cards, it would be different. But, since they do, having an existing collection is not entirely worthless. And, I think you underestimate the difficulty of balancing environments. Magic is a money game, which kind of makes it a bit more important not to screw up, yet WotC has made mistakes in what they've banned in important formats. Do you think anyone else is going to do a better job of isolating which cards need to be banned when someone produces a broken combo or when a ruling situation becomes so undesirable that banning a card solves the problem? >> Mass bannings on the level required to deal with CCG bloat would not be >worth >> the effort. For one thing, you can bring back retired cards or you can >make >> new cards that are functionally similar to retired cards. > >I'm not sure what this means. Reprint Moxen? No one cares much about Fire >Diamonds in a format where they (and their opponent) can play a Mox Ruby. I >have nothing against the reprint of balanced cards, but it's not the issue >and doesn't solve the same problems that banning does. CCGs bloat - new cards and new rules cause them to become increasingly complex over time. It becomes increasingly difficult to playtest every possible card interaction as the number of possible interactions increases exponentially. By retiring cards, you clean the slate and, then, can bring back cards that don't interact in undesirable ways with the latest cards if so inclined. Without retiring cards, what you will find is a card harmless a year ago is now broken due to a new card, new theme, or new rule. The cards that are overpowered are not the same cards that will be. In fact, CCGs have had cards be overpowered until an expansion changed the environment to where they ceased to be. I could give an example from WoT, but I'm sure no one reading this would care. While Magic examples aren't great for this newsgroup, there's an obvious example of an innocuous card that shouldn't be in Standard. In an environment where Threshold and Flashback are supposed to be useful, would you really want Tormod's Crypt to be legal? What you would find is that the number of these sorts of cards would increase.

Curevei wrote: > > >> >So if a card needs to banned, you ban it. ... > >> >if that's what you need to do to make the game work, don't > >> >freak out over it. Just do it. > >> > >> Or, you do something brilliant like rotate cards out of the environment > >> then bring back ones that aren't overpowered, overpowered in combination > >> with new cards, or rulings nightmares. > > > >I'm not sure how that turns out to be "brilliant". How many cards got banned > >in that manner which were not the least bit overpowered? How many cards got > >banned that actually deserved to get banned? From where I'm standing, that's > >using an atomic bomb to destroy a rat's nest. > > I've yet to find a CCG where every card was worth playing. A significant > percentage of the cards you are saying don't deserve to be banned are > effectively banned by being too weak or too boring to play. That's impossible to say. Of course some cards in every set will be wallpaper. That seems to be the way of the CCG world, as I noted in another post recently. I suppose there was even a higher percentage of wallpaper in some of these early sets for the same reason there was a higher percentage of over- powered cards: WotC's inexperience which caused an ineptness in terms of balancing cards at the time. But the truth is, none of these cards you suggest are too weak has ever been free of their overpowered counterparts to know how worthwhile they'd be in a truly balanced environment. So you can't say that. And I certainly think a fair number of them would prove useful. > The ones that are balanced and interesting have a good chance of getting > reprinted, assuming anything gets reprinted. Actually, I think you overestimate the chance of WotC ever reprinting any single particular card. As they keep coming out with totally new cards on a regular basis, any one card begins to represent a smaller and smaller piece of the population of good candidates for reprint. Over time, I think you'll find the percentage of total original, unique cards that get reprinted in some later set will go down. > I'm not suggesting retiring cards (by rotating them out of some environment) is > ideal. It's simply a more elegant way of keeping the game under control both > from a balance perspective and a rulings one. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. In my mind, banning the correct set of individual cards seems a much more obviously eloquent solution, because it cuts out the cancer and nothing but the cancer. > >The list of cards requiring > >banning may have numbered over 100, but the last rules on Extended I know > >about, probably got many times that number. AND THEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HIT >SOME OF THE CARDS THAT *STILL* NEEDED TO BE BANNED AND WEREN'T!!! > > Extended will start using a rotation format when the next stand alone comes in. I know. They will finally ban enough hundreds of cards with their chronological policy that they'll cut the last couple of dozen bad ones. I still find the above point to be a ghastly demonstration of just how silly it is to fix this problem this way. > If they never brought back any of the old cards, it would be different. But, > since they do, having an existing collection is not entirely worthless. Not entirely worthless, no. But close to it, at least for these purposes. > And, I think you underestimate the difficulty of balancing environments. Magic > is a money game, which kind of makes it a bit more important not to screw up, > yet WotC has made mistakes in what they've banned in important formats. Do you > think anyone else is going to do a better job of isolating which cards need to > be banned when someone produces a broken combo or when a ruling situation > becomes so undesirable that banning a card solves the problem? (shrugs) Just because an important decision can't be made perfectly, doesn't mean you should avoid making it when it's the only way. I guess I see set rotation as being so inappropriate for the purpose that the fact the DCI makes mistakes from time to time about banning disturbs me very little. WotC makes mistakes about what they decide to print at all and that screws up the game just as much. What can you do about that except to stop printing cards at all? You can't live in fear of mistakes all the time. > CCGs bloat - new cards and new rules cause them to become increasingly complex > over time. It becomes increasingly difficult to playtest every possible card > interaction as the number of possible interactions increases exponentially. By > retiring cards, you clean the slate and, then, can bring back cards that don't > interact in undesirable ways with the latest cards if so inclined. Without > retiring cards, what you will find is a card harmless a year ago is now broken > due to a new card, new theme, or new rule. The cards that are overpowered are > not the same cards that will be. In fact, CCGs have had cards be overpowered > until an expansion changed the environment to where they ceased to be. I could > give an example from WoT, but I'm sure no one reading this would care. Magic has had that, too. Again, I don't find it disturbing enough to care. Ban something. Make a decision that might be wrong. And if it turns out to be wrong, fix it. > While Magic examples aren't great for this newsgroup, there's an obvious > example of an innocuous card that shouldn't be in Standard. In an environment > where Threshold and Flashback are supposed to be useful, would you really want > Tormod's Crypt to be legal? What you would find is that the number of these > sorts of cards would increase. I don't think they would increase exponentially, if that's what you fear. In this kind of a case, you're looking at two different card mechanics that interact badly. The answer is to pick the one you like better for whatever reason and ban the other one (whether it be a single one or a series of them). I don't happen to think that's a bad solution. Fred

>I'm not sure where we're failing to communicate, here. Obviously, you ban >those cards, too. It took WotC a good couple of years and several editions >and expansions before they finally got the concept of checking for power >balance in cards before printing them through their thick skulls. Therefore, >even though the first three printings were the worst (Alpha/Beta/Unlimited), >they were still printing cards that in a true all-editions-allowed >constructed deckbuilding environment need to banned as late as fourth >edition. Really? I don't keep up much but from what I've seen, cards from "that other Game" only continue to get more and more powerful. I'd say that a lot of the cards *now* are *a lot* more powerful and/or broken than some of the old Alpha, Arabian Nights, and Legends cards... Halcyan 2

> XZealot wrote: > > > HD wrote: > > > > Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful > > commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to > > creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla > > Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many > > people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much > > better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of > > money on more cards. > > Are you on crack? I mean really.... Crack has been hard to get lately, so I've switched to sleep-deprivation-induced-dementia. It's pretty effective... just read my latest posts on this newsgroup for a few good examples. ;o) > Aren't Blood Dolls common and Minion Taps uncommon? Who doesn't need more > of those? True. I'll bet there are a lot of people that would like to have a few more Blood Dolls and Minion Taps (I certainly would). But that's pretty obvious, right? Anyone that is trying to keep a few decks ready to go at all times needs several copies of these types of cards (unless they are working with 'modules' or other similar deck building techniques). I think that I mentioned something about these specific cards later on... > > > > Getting a few good rare cards isn't worth buying several boxes. > > Anyone who disagrees with this either has much more disposable income > > than the average person, or they are kind of obsessed with the game > > (and those people don't count). > > I don't normally think that the rares are all that. I agree. Sometimes the rares are kind of lame. > Set's Call anyone? They > are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that > you really need. Disarm Freak Drive Hungry Coyote Coagulated Entity (is that a rare?) etc. But that's not the point. I'm simply trying to say that there should be several good cards in every pack - even after buying 1/2 a box of cards. I continue to enjoy getting Bloodlines cards because there were so many new cards and I keep getting something I'm looking for each time I buy a few packs. That will probably level off pretty soon, but I've been quite pleased so far. The only frustrating thing is the difficulty of getting some of the rares that you might want 6 or seven copies of in a deck. I prefer rares like Hungry Coyote that only demand one or two copies to be useful in a deck. > > > > What we are talking about here is whether or not most people are going > > to be happy with their purchase every time they buy a few packs of > > cards (new players and long-term players alike). An expansion set > > that gets old or boring after someone buys 1/2 a box of cards is a > > poorly constructed expansion. Every single pack of cards should have > > several cards that are great.... period. Good commons, even better > > uncommons, and amazing rares. > > Did you have this experience recently? No, I didn't. That's why I decided to write something about this topic. But it appears that my attempts to explain my position aren't working very well. I've tried to convey my thoughts on this subject in a few different posts, but it hasn't worked so far.... > Generally in Vampire it is the exact > opposite. There are amazing commons, good uncommons and okay rares. > Generally, rarity is based on usage. If there are amazing commons in an expansion, then that is great. Good commons are also nice. The problem I was trying to address was "wallpaper" cards like Tourtured Confessions (someone mentioned this card earlier and I agree - it's a pretty lame card). The less of these there are the better, right? > If you commmonly use it, then it will > be common. If is is uncommonly used then it will be uncommon. If it will > rarely be used then it is rare. Huh? I thought that the rarity schemes were based on the number of prints for a particular card in comparison with other cards. I assumed that rare cards were harder to come by because fewer of them were created and that commons were easy to come by because many more of them were printed. Isn't there a higher ratio of commons in each expansion (lots of them) vs. rares (fewer of them)? > > Personally, I would like White Wolf to come out with a "greatest hits" > > expansion. This would include all the best cards on each of the three > > main levels (common, uncommon, rare) from all the older expansions. > > However, I also think this might be boring for long-term players. > > That's why I suggested that White Wolf start publishing new cards in > > place of some of the old ones that are still useful. Who needs > > another Bastard Sword? Why not create something else instead?? How > > about a Hunting Knife or Switch Blade that is similar to a Bastard > > Sword, but has a small distinguishing feature (ex. cold steel weapon, > > breaks when used against Skin of Steel, can only be used twice in one > > combat, etc.) Why not apply this kind of logic to other cards as > > well? > > Haven't we had alot of this recently? I was quite impressed with it. Me too. I'm just a little concerned about the Camarilla Edition and all the talk about reprints. Those cards are probably already in print (as someone mentioned in another post), so voicing our concerns may not change anything. But I still seem to feel the need to babble on about wanting more new cards. Maybe it's just because I didn't get much support for this idea in other posts. I naively assume that it's a good idea and that I just need to keep talking about it ...and then everyone will say "Oh, I get it. That IS a good idea." But that's not likely, eh? (shrug) > > I realize that making new cards with similar mechanics as other cards > > may be a little weak, but it's much better than creating more "throw > > away" cards or simply reprinting the same old stuff. > > So what you are saying is that you would be okay with reprinting Poker but > not Bastard Sword. How is making new cards with similar mechanics that much > different from reprinting the old cards? Not quite. I have no specific need for another Poker reprint. But a new card with a slight twist might be cool. And I DEFINITELY don't need more Bastard Swords or Meat Cleavers. I would prefer a slightly tweeked version of a Bastard Sword (or Poker or IR Goggles or Combat Shotgun, etc.) rather than just a reprint of exactly the same thing with some new art. A good example of what I'm trying to get at here is the difference between a Flame Thrower and an Improvised Flame Thrower. Cool idea, decent weapon, and a nice addition to the role playing aspect of the game. Do you agree? Even if you don't like the card itself, do you like the concept of a new card option with slightly different mechanics? That's the real issue here. > > I believe that every new expansion is a great opportunity to fill in > > the gaps that currently exist in the game while also creating new > > dynamics and strategies. I am hoping that White Wolf will continue to > > make better and better expansion sets so the game will continually > > improve. > > I actually think that they have done an excellent job so far. Yes, they have ...with a few exceptions like Tortured Confession. But overall, I've was pleased with all the recent expansion sets. Heck, I'm just glad that they are printing cards again. Let me back up a minute and say "Thank You White Wolf" for picking up the game and printing new expansion sets. On the other hand, there's always room for improvement. It's just that I would like to see fewer wallpaper cards in the next few expansions. That's all I'm really saying here. > > > Here are some suggestions: > > > > - Find out which cards people are actually using in the game > > > > - Create more cards that are truly useful > > (without throwing off the balance) > > > > - Develop the role playing aspect of the game a bit more > > (more options) > > I believe that almost every clan is fleshed out while sticking to the > storyline. I must say that I think that is pretty incredible. > > > - Include more objects, locations, and characters that are a common > > part of life (cars, buses, toll booths, coffee shops, health clubs, > > bums, prostitutes, lawyers, firemen, swat team, helicopters, private > > jets, limos, kitchen knives, lead pipes, baseball bats, etc) > > The first question you need to ask yourself is "How do these interact with > vampires at a level where they are relative to world domination?" I think that more of this type of thing may show up in the Anarchs expansion set, and I'm looking forward to it. > > The main problem I see with various expansion sets is how quickly they > > become boring. > > Which expansion, how did they get boring, and which cards are you talking > about? Sabbat War was great until I realized that I already had a lot of the cards. I think that it was a good expansion set that filled a gap (many people never got Sabbat cards) and that was good, but I still wanted a few more new cards in the set. Overall it was pretty good though. Final Nights was much better than Dark Soveriegn (IMHO), but there were some cards that haven't made their way into any of my decks (Banner Nuetrality, Save Face, Guard Duty Venitian Conference, etc.) Maybe someone else has found a way to use these cards, and maybe they are better than they seem at first glance. But what was up with Tortured Confessions? That's just a bad card, right? > The real trick is finding the balance between a truly > > useful card and a card that is too powerful. White Wolf has > > occasionally created cards that cost a little too much (blood or > > pool), aren't quite powerful enough, or apply to very limited > > circumstances, and they end up being completely useless. > > Like what? You need to back up your generalizations with a little fact. Why mess up a good rant with a bunch of facts? They just get in the way... ;o) Actually, I don't have any of these cards memorized. Since I rarely use the cards that I don't like, I'm not too familiar with them and it's hard to talk about them off the top of my head. I'm sorry if this statement was too generalized, but I didn't think it was necessary to fish around for those cards to back it up. I thought that this statement was rather obvious and I didn't imagine that anyone would even question it. I'm suprised you disagree. > > And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to > > spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. > > Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players > > alike. > > They should realize that buying one booster pack will not create a playable > deck. Of course. No one would expect that have a deck after buying one booster pack. Are you just messing around here? > However if you buy a box you will get several playable decks, so it > may be worth it for two friends to split a box. Good idea ...IF they were going to get into the game. My friends are hesitant because they have so many other things they are doing (working long hours, buying a house, dealing with relative, etc. etc.) They could handle the financial aspect, but I feel that it is fair to warn them that a preconstructed deck is not all there is too it. Constructing a good deck takes a much larger purchase (a box of cards & a preconstucted deck or two? maybe more?). > > Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs > > too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of > > the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had > > a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood > > counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one > > of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their > > wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly > > interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them > > thought it was kind of fun. > > > > But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes > > to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a > > lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my > > frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow > > the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each > > of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have > > to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to > > make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more > > money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting > > any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's > > like a financial black hole. > > Dude, that is weak. Unbelievable, you carry the cards around and teach > people how to play, then when they are interested in the game you tell them > how much it sucks. Wait a minute. Back up. I never said the game sucks. I just told them about the things I do and don't like about it. I was trying to be honest with them rather than just hype it up and try to "sell them" on the game. A while ago, I gave one of the guys a few decks to look over, a rule book, and a couple of the clan novels to look through. He was interested and may buy some cards someday, but until then, I will just loan them my decks if they want to play. Besides, these are my college friends and I don't see them that much any more. They are busy with work, their wives, and their families. > Which not only makes the game, but you look bad. I look just fine, actually. Even better since I got a new haircut. :o) > You do not have to justify other people's actions. Are you sure... > That is for lawyers and philosophers. I was a political philosphy major in college. Maybe that's the problem. :o) > You should just let them continue playing with your cards > until they feel like they have enough grasp of the game to buy a starter. > After they buy a starter then you can help them with their deckbuilding > theory with all those hundreds of spare cards you have. That's my plan. If they are really interested. I'm not going to try and force this game on anyone that isn't actually into this sort of thing. > > If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a box > > of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out > > that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards that > > are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards for > > myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf > > doesn't make it more accessible to the average person. > > Then walk. Nobody likes ultimatums being thrown around That wasn't meant as an ultimatum. It's just something that I've been considering for a while since I've been having trouble finding people that play the game in Houston. I often wonder why I'm spending time and money on a game that very few people in this area seem to be interested in. If I shelve my cards and stop playing the game (like I did when I first moved to Houston - I left my cards with a friend in Boulder, Colorado), then that will not effect White Wolf in the slightest. I'm just one guy among thousands (millions?) and I won't have a huge impact on what happens. I realize that. > especially one's > based upon such unsupported drivel that you have been tossing around in this > post. Ouch. Was that necessary? > Create a position and support it. Everything I heard above is > "Waaaah, I am missing a card. I quit!". It is a card game you are never > going to have all the cards you want. You missed the point entirely. It's not about a particular card that I may or may not be missing. It's about making the next few expansions as good as they possibly can be (new cards, balanced mechanics, reasonable prices, etc.). I may have babbled on a bit too much, and you may think that some of my statements were unsupported , but I thought most of it was obvious and didn't need to be spelled out. You're a smart guy and I don't need to hold your hand and walk you through everything step by step. Maybe I'm not writing as coherently as I should... or maybe I should stop posting messages in the early hours of the morning... either way, the "Waaaah" statement was unnecessary. > > Frustrated in Houston, > > Howard > > Howard, I really enjoyed our game in Houston, but I think your frustration > stems more from a small player base than anything about the cards. You need > to build your player base by telling people how fun the game is. I enjoyed our games too. And the all-you-can-eat sushi was an excellent idea. AND I was happy with our trades (did you like your cards?) And I agree with what you're saying about my frustrations stemming from a small player base. I might not even be talking about the next expansion set and some of my other concerns if I had a larger player base nearby. I would be happily playing the game using the good cards that I have while making some trades and testing out my newer decks. That would be great. BTW - I generally talk positively about the game and I certainly didn't trash it. I just didn't want to lie and say that it's all wonderful. That wouldn't be very cool. Now for the good news... a few days ago I went to a new store in North West Houston to meet up with some guys who play Jyhad here in Houston. It was the grand opening celebration and it turned out that there were a few other people there who used to play the game. The owner of the store and his wife have tons of cards and are looking to get back into it. We had a few good games and some of the other people who were watching said that they would like to get in on the next game. Finally... > > PS Here are some of the cards I am hoping to see in future > > expansions. Either these specific cards or something else that is > > similar: > > > > Blood Dolls > This card is Common and there are two in every starter (snip my long and rather pointless list of cards - thanks for the comments) > > What do you guys think? Which of these cards are worth reprinting? > > I think you have listed twenty rares out of 46 cards which in fact out of > all of them only 8 of which have not been reprinted at least once. Really? Ok, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Imagine that! > > What cards did I leave out? > > I think you left out about 500 cards that are all good and worthy Is that all? I thought there might be one or two more... > > And more importantly, how could White Wolf make new cards with similar > > attributes and effects? > > Why do they need to do that? So we can institute a card limit? Neither of > which are nessasary. We want new ideas not recycled ideas. Exactly. New ideas for new cards. Fewer reprints (unless absolutely necessary - ex. Blood Doll) That's what I'm talking about. > > > Maybe some people are silly enough to go ahead and buy the 4 boxes of FN > and > > > give WW what it wants in the "short run" (and hopefully they are upset > and > > > frustrated with their purchase). But I hope that there are considerably > more > > > people who have despaired of having a "play set" of all the rares and > just quit > > > early, as it became clear that they couldn't achieve their goal. > > I am quite happy with my multi-box purchase of Final Night. I can build > that Ravnos deck I alway wanted. :) > > > > Am I the only one that glances through the entire pack, rather than just > the > > > last card? > > > No, you're not alone on that one. > > > > I wouldn't say you are alone, but why you are not building decks out of your > commons and uncommons rather than looking for the rares?> I am building decks out my commons and uncommons. Some rares are helpful here and there, but the majority of my decks are not based on rares (I'm not sure if any of them are). What made you think that I'm trying to get nothing but rares? Many of the cards I listed were uncommons, right? I don't think that I said anything about them all being rares (I certainly didn't intend to suggest that). The point was to talk about future expansions and try to contribute something to the converstation without getting too bogged down with all that "R1 vs. R2" stuff. I know that specifics examples are useful, but some of these posts are hard to follow because of all that jargon. > > Eventually the commons may become useless, but then you'd expect to > > > at least get a few decent uncommons, rather than just 3 vampires that > you > > > already have too many copies of, right? > > > > > Exactly. Although I hope that even the commons are useful. If they > > aren't, then it is just a waste of time and money. > > > At this point in time you two should probably be trading if you are only > looking for a card or two rather than buying more cards. You might each > have what the other wants. I think what we are both looking for is some minor improvements in the next few expansion sets. That way the cards are worth the price. They're not too overly priced as it is, but it would be nice if there were fewer cards that are not very useful. Less wallpaper, more deck builder cards. Trading is fine when you can find it. Hopefully I'll be able to figure out a way to increase my trades or find more people to trade with. The new store in Houston may work out well for that. > > If packs were a buck, or 50 cents like > > > Jyhad packs used to be, sure, but $3 a card, when you don't even know > what that > > > card is? > > > > > > I totally agree. You've hit the nail on the head. > > You need to think about your problems. They can be solved without spending > more money. Thanks Doc, I'll see you next week. Keep the couch warm for me. ;o) You sound a little like a Jyhad Yoda here ... "Find the cards you seek, you shall" ...I recently saw the new Star Wars movie (it was pretty cool). or maybe that Sho-lin Priest from Kung Fu... (did I spell that right?) "Ah, little grasshopper, the cards you wish for are within your grasp. If only you would open your heart and truly see what is possible... only then will you know the way... <blurry fade out>" > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Thanks Norm! It's been fun. :o) Cheers, Howard PS I was trying to read through this post and edit any mistakes, spelling errors, and such. But it's really late (early?) and I just realized that the sun has actually been up for a while now (damn, it's 7:30am!). I was up all night and I'm going to have to cut this one short (too late? :o) I hope there aren't too many errors and it all makes some kind of sense somehow... in a slightly twisted sort of way maybe...

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I haven't checked the past couple of years. I can imagine that they might be printing cards more powerful than what you'd find in Mirage, Tempest, etc. But I'd be pretty shocked if they were printing anything that compared with, let alone was a lot more powerful than Moxen, Black Lotus, Library of Alexandria, Argivian Archaeologist, Underworld Dreams, Mirror Universe, and so forth. Fred

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Are you on crack? I mean really.... Aren't Blood Dolls common and Minion > Taps uncommon? Who doesn't need more of those? Me. I have milk crate filled with cards I don't need and I'm working on a 2nd. Maybe I'll bring it to Origins and let every go nuts and take what they want. However, newer players probably could use more of them. > I don't normally think that the rares are all that. Set's Call anyone? They > are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that > you really need. Oh geez. The list goes on and on. Derange was certainly at the top of it a while ago. Dog Pack was as well. Which reminds me...I have to remember to ship Jay the cards I owe him. (Sorry man.) Those "extremely cornercase" cards are what amusing strategies are built on. If I was to build an intercept deck with Serpentis, I'd certainly add some Set's Call in it. > There are amazing commons, good uncommons and okay rares. There are also shitty commons, shitty uncommons and amazing (and shitty) rares. The opinion you hold of a card is just that. I still keep running into people that think that Uriah Winter has a disadvantage. > Generally, rarity is based on usage. If you commmonly use it, then it will > be common. If is is uncommonly used then it will be uncommon. If it will > rarely be used then it is rare. Patently untrue. See Powerbase: Montreal. Very frequently played in my neck of the woods. Sometimes availability is in indicator of use, rather than the reverse, which you suggest. Derange, for example, would be far more often used if it was more available. With 11, I think I have the largest collection of them in the VTES community. However, while there are some powerful rares, your essential point is very correct. Rares are not necessary to build a competitive deck. > I actually think that they have done an excellent job so far. As do I. >> But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it takes >> to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a >> lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of my >> frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow >> the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give each >> of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still have >> to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares to >> make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make more >> money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify getting >> any of them into something that takes so much money to play... it's >> like a financial black hole. > > Dude, that is weak. Unbelievable, you carry the cards around and teach > people how to play, then when they are interested in the game you tell them > how much it sucks. Which not only makes the game, but you look bad. I agree 100% here. Boo. Hiss. Bugger off and play Magic: The Crack Habit if you think this is a nothing more than a financial black hole. Further, his assertation that you need rares to make a competitive deck is bullshit. I can make a vicious deck with nothing but the commons and uncommons in my milk crate. >> If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a box >> of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out >> that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards that >> are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards for >> myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf >> doesn't make it more accessible to the average person. > > Then walk. I'll get his shoes and coat. The game doesn't need someone with that kind of attitude "promoting" the game. > Howard, I really enjoyed our game in Houston, but I think your frustration > stems more from a small player base than anything about the cards. You need > to build your player base by telling people how fun the game is. With that kind of attitude, is it any wonder he has a small play group?!? I know I'm irresistibly drawn to play with someone that displays such a negative energy when publicly asked about a hobby that he's invested in. By the way, here's another fact of life. All good hobbies are expensive. Except, maybe, rock collecting. Everything else costs a substantial amount of money. [ quoted text not captured ]

HD wrote > And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to > spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. > Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players > alike. Packs of Sabbat War, Final Nights, and Bloodlines have one of the lowest average costs per pack of any currently printed CCG. Granted, the CGG game/hobby can be an expensive one, but White Wolf is clearly doing what it can to stay on the low end of the cost curve for CCGs and still make a profit for themselves. > Even though I could give each of these guys hundreds of cards (I have > a lot), they would still have to go buy several boxes of cards or search > the Internet for rares to make a truly competitive deck. Nonsense. Here's a deck with 2 rares in it (3 if you count the !Tremere in the crypt), and it looks like it was very competitive: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#gencon2k1 It looks like the Malkavian Rider Clauses (and the accompanying Dramatic Upheavals) are not at all essential to the deck (they're pretty clearly prayer cards), so you could replace them with cards of your liking. You could swap out Reverend Blackwood for Laurent de Valois, or simply include another copy of one of the other vampires in the crypt. That's just one example...You could also go through the Tournament Winning Deck Archive and find other examples. In many cases, the rare cards can be readily replaced with other, non-rare cards with minimal or no effect on performance. I'm just really tired of hearing people say that you need Disarms, and Awes, and 2nd Trads, and 5th Trads, et al, in order to be successful at this game. It's simply not true. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Noal McDonald wrote: > > "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > I don't normally think that the rares are all that. Set's Call anyone? They > > are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that > > you really need. > > Oh geez. The list goes on and on. Derange was certainly at the top of > it a while ago. Dog Pack was as well. Dog Pack?!? Not saying you're wrong about the rares. I can name a number of rares myself. But Dog Pack is not one I've ever been able to get to work for me. They keep working out to being a self-bleed for two when I try to play the suckers. I do notice they've being selling well on EBAY lately. I'd love to hear anyone's story about how they managed to get some good out of Dog Packs. Fred

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<d48G8.20$mG.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>... > > Finally someone is talking about the importance of having useful > > commons and uncommons. This one of the most important aspects to > > creating a good expansion set or a 'base set' like the Camarilla > > Edition. Unfortunately, this concept seems to be ignored by many > > people. If most of the commons are lame and the uncommons aren't much > > better, then only the hard core players are going to waste a bunch of > > money on more cards. > Are you on crack? I mean really.... Aren't Blood Dolls common and Minion > Taps uncommon? Who doesn't need more of those? They aren't lame though. > > Getting a few good rare cards isn't worth buying several boxes. > > Anyone who disagrees with this either has much more disposable income > > than the average person, or they are kind of obsessed with the game > > (and those people don't count). > I don't normally think that the rares are all that. Set's Call anyone? They > are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that > you really need. I've seen a lot of Ravnos decks that really need the Week to be threatening. Due to its limitations they only need 1, but they need it. Anyways, list of rares that are commonly useful, and what I think the rarity should be: Jyhad/Vtes Freak Drive (common) Immortal Grapple (fixed after vtes, hopefully stays uncommon) Ivory Bow (should probably be uncommon) Kine Dominance / Dominate Kine (uncommon) Murder of Crows (uncommon) Sengir Dagger (like the bow, but less so) Dark Sovereigns - uses only C/U rarity Ancient Hearts Dreams of the Sphinx (common) Temptation (uncommon) Sabbat Awe (uncommon) Daring the Dawn (if day op was useful/interesting enough to warrant a second go, it probably shouldn't have been a rare :) Derange (uncommon) Disarm (common) Entombment (uncommon, maybe common) Hungry Coyote, The (uncommon) Intimidation (common) Palla Grande (uncommon) FN Creepshow Casino (uncommon) Perfect Clarity (common) Path of Bone (uncommon) Path of Paradox (uncommon) Week of Nightmares (uncommon) BL Armor of Terra (common) Conscripted Statue (common) Elemental Stoicism (uncommon) Engling Fury (common) Gift of Bellona (common) Muricia's Call (uncommon) Neutral Guard (common) Paris Opera House (uncommon) Shroud of Absence (common) Siren's Lure (common) Tabriz Assembly (uncommon) Unburdening the Beastial Soul (uncommon) Most of these aren't too bad. In particular, the Jyhad/Vtes set's only really huge flaw was freak drive and IG, and IG got fixed. Then there's other stuff that is kinda borderline between should be rare and shouldn't be. BL is by far and away the worst offender. The DoC are about 100 times better with lots of sirens lures. Engling Fury helps the cats a bunch. The !Salubri weapon decks needed something better than Gift of Bellona, but as that's all they have, they need it. > > And the new packs are also fairly expensive. If a person is going to > > spend about $3 on a pack of cards, they damn well better be worth it. > > Otherwise it is going to discourage new players and long-term players > > alike. > They should realize that buying one booster pack will not create a playable > deck. However if you buy a box you will get several playable decks, so it > may be worth it for two friends to split a box. Sure, but only if you're buying the base sets. And even then, it's quite a bit more than a box before you get something really polished. First off you're only getting so many BDs/MTs in there, secondly decks tend to have large multiples of at least one card. Even if that card is common, you won't get 9 of a particular common in a box. > > Awe > a rare that is easily substitited with Bewitching Oration and in most > cases is inferior to Bewitching Oration. You can sub BO, but BO won't autopass any vote (barring DI/vote cancelation). Awe + some blood will. > > Behind you > a rare which is very cornercase. When did maneuvers and dodges become cornercase? > > Forgotten labyrinth > an uncommon in three sets > > Govern the unaligned > a common in every set that included dominate as minion cards > > Shroud of absence > a dual discipline rare card that combines the function of the inferior > of two common cards. I would say this alone makes it corner case. Hell no. This is a stealth modifier which gives a free S:CE if you get intercepted. Only 2 clans can use it heavily due to discipline requirements, but so what? If the # of clans that can play it is a factor, I guess all thaum cards should be rare because only the Tremere can use them. > > Shadow step > a sabbat only rare that has plenty of substitutes in the form of > maneuvers But not the superior, and not for obt. You can fake out but if you're using SS you probably wanted to do something in combat offensively. > > Temptation of a greater power > a cornercase rare that is very dangerous to use Sure, if you're an idiot > > Derange > a Sabbat only rare which is useful mainly for removing prince's titles Superior is just flat out good.

On 18 May 2002 02:01:43 -0700, HD wrote: >Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs >too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of >the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had >a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood >counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one >of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their >wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly >interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them >thought it was kind of fun. You stood in line for hours for this movie? People who are willing to do that are good prospects for a CGG - obsessive geeks. But Vampire was an odd choice, don't you think? That would go nicely with Queen of Darkness or Blade II but then, there probably wouldn't be much standing in line in that case. The smart game to have chosen was Garfield's latest CCG - the WotC Star Wars game. That's just been released and so you'd all be starting on equal terms. And it uses stills from the new movie - you'd have had to fight the rest of the line off. But given the way the movie turned out, the really smart choice would have been to be playing Heroclix in the line for Spiderman. I haven't seen that movie yet but it's got to be better than Attack of the Clones. The game is good too. Five of us had good fun with just a couple of starters the other day. It'd be fun to collect but the collecting looks fairly optional - which is just as well as it's sold out here in London. With games like this as the competition, you need a good reason to get into something as heavy as Vampire. It's a crowded market now. Mark Rein.Hagen doesn't seem to have had much success with his Z-G miniature/CCG hybrid. Z-Man are launching another new format soon with their game Warchon. It's a bookmark game which is designed to be played while standing in line. But does any of this help you get to the head of the line? Maybe if one uses LARP rules where you cross your arms to become invisible ... Andrew

Skip this post if you're looking for a discussion on strategy or other useful and interesting topics. This turned into a tirade and an attempt to explain an earlier message. Mostly useless information... Noal McDonald wrote: > > Are you on crack? I mean really.... Aren't Blood Dolls common and Minion > > Taps uncommon? Who doesn't need more of those? > > Me. I have milk crate filled with cards I don't need and I'm working > on a 2nd. Maybe I'll bring it to Origins and let every go nuts and > take what they want. What is Origins? Is that a tournament, and if so, when and where? If you really have a bunch of cards that you don't want any more, then I'd like to see if we could do some trades. Send me your "wish list" and I'll see if I have anything you need. Or if you have a better idea, let me know what it is. > However, newer players probably could use more of them. > > > I don't normally think that the rares are all that. Set's Call anyone? They > > are for the most part extremely cornercase. Please name the rare cards that > > you really need. > > Oh geez. The list goes on and on. Derange was certainly at the top of > it a while ago. Dog Pack was as well. Which reminds me...I have to > remember to ship Jay the cards I owe him. (Sorry man.) > > Those "extremely cornercase" cards are what amusing strategies are > built on. If I was to build an intercept deck with Serpentis, I'd > certainly add some Set's Call in it. True. And I doubt anyone would want to get rid of the cards that are good in cornercase situations. But it would be nice to eliminate (or reduce) the amount of wallpaper cards if possible. > > > There are amazing commons, good uncommons and okay rares. > > There are also shitty commons, shitty uncommons and amazing (and > shitty) rares. The opinion you hold of a card is just that. I still > keep running into people that think that Uriah Winter has a > disadvantage. How do you use Uriah Winter effectively? I've always lost him soon after bringing him out. What are you doing to make that minion work in a deck? > > Generally, rarity is based on usage. If you commmonly use it, then it will > > be common. If is is uncommonly used then it will be uncommon. If it will > > rarely be used then it is rare. > > Patently untrue. See Powerbase: Montreal. Very frequently played in my > neck of the woods. Sometimes availability is in indicator of use, > rather than the reverse, which you suggest. Derange, for example, > would be far more often used if it was more available. With 11, I > think I have the largest collection of them in the VTES community. > > However, while there are some powerful rares, your essential point is > very correct. Rares are not necessary to build a competitive deck. > > > I actually think that they have done an excellent job so far. > > As do I. I've already said that I agree, and I never said that the expansion sets sucked. They are pretty good overall, but isn't there room for improvement? What would you suggest? > >> But then one of them asked how much the cards cost, how long it > takes > >> to learn, and so on. I explained that it took me a long time and a > >> lot of money to put together all my decks. I talked about some of > my > >> frustrations with the game and in the end, I recommend that he blow > >> the game off because it costs too much. Even though I could give > each > >> of these guys hundreds of cards (I have a lot), they would still > have > >> to go buy several boxes of cards or search the Internet for rares > to > >> make a truly competitive deck. Most of these guys actually make > more > >> money than I do (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but I can't justify > getting > >> any of them into something that takes so much money to play... > it's > >> like a financial black hole. > > > > Dude, that is weak. Unbelievable, you carry the cards around and teach > > people how to play, then when they are interested in the game you tell them > > how much it sucks. Which not only makes the game, but you look bad. > > I agree 100% here. Boo. Hiss. Bugger off and play Magic: The Crack > Habit if you think this is a nothing more than a financial black hole. That's exactly the point. I don't want this game to turn into Magic or any of the other expensive CCGs where the rarity schemes are all screwed up, cards sets can't be used with other sets, and a bunch of other problems that there is no need to go into. Your comments are pretty harsh here. Apparently my concerns aren't valid? Why is that? You need to understand that I'm not talking about someone who is only going to borrow decks from me or buy a couple preconstructed decks and leave it at that. I'm worried about the guys that would really get into this and start buying tons of cards. One of my friends is unemployed right now and the last thing he needs is a new hobby/obsession. I would loan him decks and cards if he was interested, but he's smart enough to keep his distance (he's a bit obsessive-compulsive). Another friend already collects comic books and that's already a bit of a strain on his marriage... not a serious issue, but does he need any more potential problems? And one other guy is so busy that he doesn't have much free time (he's a young doctor paying his dues), so his wife cringes at anything that would leave her too far out of the loop (she tried to watch the game and participate - she put movie popcorn on one guys vamps in place of blood in an attempt to be funny and be involved - but she eventually wandered off). I'll certainly make the game available to these guys, but I'm not going to cram it down their throats. Especially when there are other people that already have cards and are interested in the game. That makes sense, doesn't it? If my friends would rather play poker or go to a movie, then that's what I'm going to do with them. And don't I get any props for thinking ahead and putting some decks in my car just in case? Actually, if I had really been on my toes, I would have bought a few packs of the new Star Wars CCG decks. That would have been more apropos to the situation. > Further, his assertation that you need rares to make a competitive > deck is bullshit. I can make a vicious deck with nothing but the > commons and uncommons in my milk crate. I didn't say that you can't make a competitive deck without rares. I said that they would need to buy more cards. I think that's what I said... that's certainly what I meant. The preconstructed decks don't stand on up their own and it takes a box or two to make good decks from some of the expansions (IMHO). > >> If the Camarilla Edition is a truly good set of cards, I may buy a > box > >> of the clan decks and give them to my friends. But if it turns out > >> that the packs of cards are full of lame reprints or other cards > that > >> are relatively useless, then I'm not going to even buy the cards > for > >> myself. I may eventually walk away from this game if White Wolf > >> doesn't make it more accessible to the average person. > > > > Then walk. > > I'll get his shoes and coat. The game doesn't need someone with that > kind of attitude "promoting" the game. Gee, you guys are great. One is holding the door while the other is getting my coat and shoes. What a swell bunch of fellas... > > Howard, I really enjoyed our game in Houston, but I think your frustration > > stems more from a small player base than anything about the cards. You need > > to build your player base by telling people how fun the game is. > > With that kind of attitude, is it any wonder he has a small play > group?!? I know I'm irresistibly drawn to play with someone that > displays such a negative energy when publicly asked about a hobby that > he's invested in. You're reading way too much into what I wrote. I never said that the game sucked. Where did you get that? I also never "displayed negative energy..." (what the fuck is that all about?) All I did was tell the truth to my friends. I think that is not only acceptable, but commendable. I didn't talk the game down, but I also didn't try gloss over the problems I've had with it. My friend specifically asked who I was playing the game with and if I had any problems finding people that played. He didn't like the idea of meeting up with strangers or searching people out that he didn't know - and I understand that. Don't you? I'm getting tired of defending a position that is completely reasonable given my circumstances. I cut Norm some slack because I've met him before and he's a nice guy. I decided to take his comments as "tongue in cheek" and treat it all as a joke. But I'm tired of putting up with this "kick him while he's down" bullshit. Maybe you'd like to take a little time to consider whether or not there are some valid reasons behind what I wrote. Or could it possibly be that you don't know everything there is to know about this situation? Or perhaps you've jumped to conclusions about all of this and read into what I said rather than take a few minutes to consider why I might have said it. I've had it with people that jump all over someone just because they've brought attention to various issues that they want to talk about. Some of these things need to be dealt with (IMHO). Why can't a guy make a few comments without getting jumped on and kicked around? What's the point of that???? Did it ever occur to you that I could use some suggestions on ways to build up a playgroup? How about a few useful ideas instead of this "get the fuck out" attitude. Ok, enough of my little tirade. Here's some of the background story. It might help explain a few things: I originally started playing Jyhad a few years ago with a couple of friends that were really into the game. They gave me a bunch of cards to get me started (very cool). That was when the game wasn't in print anymore and these guys were kind of struggling to keep their playgroup together. As my roommate and I got more and more into the game, the playgroup started to build up again. During this time, my roommate was able to get two boxes of Sabbat for $10 each since the game was out of print and dying - imagine that! Then I moved to Clear Lake, Texas (about 45 minutes south of Houston), and I left my cards with a friend in Colorado. I wanted to focus on my new job and I didn't think Jyhad would help me keep that focus (I had become too involved [obsessed?] with the game and spent way too much time working on new deck ideas). Just before the Sabbat War expansion came out, my friend in Colorado mailed me my cards. He called it an early Christmas present and I thought that was a nice thing to do ...but I was also hesitant because I knew that this game takes up a lot of my mental energy and time. Next thing I know, I'm buying the new cards and my friends from Colorado are making plans to meet up in Dallas for a tournament. I drove up to Dallas and picked him up at the airport (the others backed out). That was my first tournament, and I had a pretty good time. After that, I started spending a lot more time messing around with my cards and building decks ...even though I didn't know anyone that wanted to play in this area besides my girlfriend (once a month or so in a one-on-one game). My friend in Boulder suggested that I check out the Austin web site and a local chat group he found for VTES in Houston. I eventually met up with some guys for a few games and, although it was fun, it didn't turn into a regular thing. So, I've spent over a year trying to set up some games here in Houston, searching for other people that play the game, and trying to figure out how I should proceed from here. I often think that maybe I should just put the cards away or sell them on E-Bay and be done with it. But I enjoy messing around with them now and then and I look forward to the day when I can sit down to a table with a few friendly people that like this game. I think it has a fascinating structure, I like the background theme, and it takes a degree of intelligence that separates it from other similar games (IMHO). That's all good. But a multi-player game isn't much fun if there's no one to play it with. So, now it's almost two years later and I still don't know many people in this area that play the game. I've met a few people, but most of them live an hour or more away from one another and don't seem to be too motivated to set up big games. Some of the guys are serious about getting together, but not at the same times. Or one guy wants to play in central Houston while another want to meet about an hour west of downtown (everyone wants to play in their own backyard). There is also one guy that can only play during the week and another guy that can only play on the weekend (because of their jobs). Others have families or they are more focused on the live action game and other similar hobbies. Several months back, I was talking with some of the guys in Austin about having a tournament in Houston. But later on when they wanted to set up a tournament here for the Southwest Qualifier, I was unfortunately recovering from a recent motorcycle accident and was pretty messed up. No one else stepped up to take charge, and it all fell flat. That's been the trend for a while now. One guy has recently designated me as the one that needs to set up our games. Another suggested that I should take over as the Prince since I'm always trying to get games together and Mike is in Austin. But I think that a prince needs to know the rules better than I do, needs a deeper understanding of the World Of Darkness, and needs to have a certain way with people (an ability to promote the game, draw others in, settle ruling disputes, etc.). I not sure that I'm up to the task. Anyway, that's MUCH more information than anyone needed to know. But hopefully it explains my position a bit more and we can move on. BTW - The main point of my original post was the need for fewer wallpaper cards in future expansions and the upcoming base set (Camarilla Edition). That's where the cost issue comes in. Cost is a sideline issue that develops out of the problems caused by too many reprints, ultra rares, or cards that may be fairly useless in the long run. Can we get back to that? Too many wallpaper cards and ultra rares.... > > By the way, here's another fact of life. All good hobbies are > expensive. Except, maybe, rock collecting. Everything else costs a > substantial amount of money. > > Regards, > Noal McDonald > VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit Thanks Noal. You've been really helpful in motivating me to expand the details surrounding my post (I'm a little pissed off - the last thing that I want to hear is that it's my fault that there's no play group in Houston ...certainly not after all my effort ...successful or not). I hope this all makes a little more sense now, Howard PS I've recently met some people that play VTES in Galveston and Northwestern Houston. Things are actually looking much better lately.

HD wrote: > What is Origins? Is that a tournament, and if so, when and where? It's a gaming convention. http://www.originsgames.com/ -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Frederick Scott wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: > > Oh geez. The list goes on and on. Derange was certainly at the top of > > it a while ago. Dog Pack was as well. > > Dog Pack?!? Not saying you're wrong about the rares. I can name a number > of rares myself. But Dog Pack is not one I've ever been able to get to > work for me. They keep working out to being a self-bleed for two when I > try to play the suckers. I'm going to get around to making a weenie Gangrel rush deck. As I don't like wasted actions, I want to make sure the opposing minion isn't going to S:CE out of it. By using small cap vampires, the 2 pool won't be too troublesome. I've got 7-8 Dog Packs now, so that should be enough. Combine with Heidelburg to move them around and I figure you've got a party. Now that I have enough to build a deck around, we'll see what they're worth. Regards, Noal

hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote: > Skip this post if you're looking for a discussion on strategy or other > useful and interesting topics. This turned into a tirade and an > attempt to explain an earlier message. Mostly useless information... Tirades?!? In this forum?!? Say it isn't so! ;-) >> Me. I have milk crate filled with cards I don't need and I'm working >> on a 2nd. Maybe I'll bring it to Origins and let every go nuts and >> take what they want. > > What is Origins? Is that a tournament, and if so, when and where? Convention in Columbus, Ohio on July 4th weekend. LSJ already gave you the URL. > If you really have a bunch of cards that you don't want any more, then > I'd like to see if we could do some trades. Send me your "wish list" > and I'll see if I have anything you need. Or if you have a better > idea, let me know what it is. Trade? No, sorry. You don't trade for the cards in my milk crate. You just take what you need. Need is to be defined by you, not me. You're just responsible for going through the tons of cards and putting back what you don't take. > How do you use Uriah Winter effectively? I've always lost him soon > after bringing him out. What are you doing to make that minion work > in a deck? You don't lose Uriah. You shove him down your prey's throat and play Seeds of Corruption to keep him there. Now why would you want to give Uriah to your prey, you ask? Well, if you have another copy of Uriah in your uncontrolled region, you can play Betrayer. If you have Anson and The Parthenon, you can play 3 Betrayers. (See my deck in Google archives: Winter of My Betrayal) Sounds iffy? Well, you can use Vasilis, the Traitor of Don Cruez to play Revelation of the Sire on Uriah to make him Brujah. Then according to Vasilis's text, all of your Giovanni have +1 bleed. (See my deck in Google archives: Uriah Winter, Trojan Horse of the Giovanni) Lots of vampires have specials set off by your prey controlling a certain clan, etc. You make Uriah satsify that condition and you give him to your prey. However, it is necessary to play Seeds of Corruption to disable his text to keep him from moving further. > I've already said that I agree, and I never said that the expansion > sets sucked. They are pretty good overall, but isn't there room for > improvement? What would you suggest? I really have no suggestions for the direction of the game at this time. LSJ has been doing a fine job thus far. Except that allies in torpor should be burned instead. ;-) >> I agree 100% here. Boo. Hiss. Bugger off and play Magic: The Crack >> Habit if you think this is a nothing more than a financial black hole. > > That's exactly the point. I don't want this game to turn into Magic > or any of the other expensive CCGs where the rarity schemes are all > screwed up, cards sets can't be used with other sets, and a bunch of > other problems that there is no need to go into. If you have other valid concerns, by all means bring them up. However, worry not about power rares. By design, the game can be played competitively with commons and uncommons. Buying a box or two of Sabbat War will get you playable decks and that only costs about $150 or so if you buy them from Potomac Distribution. (www.potomacdist.com) That's pretty damned cheap for most hobbies. > Your comments are pretty harsh here. Apparently my concerns aren't > valid? Why is that? Because you're concerned about things that are a non-issue. > I'm worried about the guys that would really get > into this and start buying tons of cards. The tone of this is much different than the earlier statement: >>>> Most of these guys actually make more money than I do (doctors, lawyers, >>>> etc.), but I can't justify getting any of them into something that takes >>>> so much money to play... it's like a financial black hole. You're original tone (above) was that your friends have lots of cash, but you didn't think this is something that is worth spending it on. That was what I took issue with. As hobbies go, VTES is very cheap. As games you keep in your closet until you throw a party go, it's damned expensive. > If my friends would rather play poker or go to a movie, then that's what > I'm going to do with them. Well, sure. That's a given. If none of my friends played VTES, neither would I. An example is L5R. It looks like a great game, but nobody I know is interested, so I don't bother. > I didn't say that you can't make a competitive deck without rares. I > said that they would need to buy more cards. Need and want are two different things. Don't confuse them. > I think that's what I said... that's certainly what I meant. The > preconstructed decks don't stand on up their own and it takes a box > or two to make good decks from some of the expansions (IMHO). See above post regarding affordable hobby. > Gee, you guys are great. One is holding the door while the other is > getting my coat and shoes. What a swell bunch of fellas... Welcome to the Metropolitan Detroit Campus of the School of Hard Knocks. If you're just going to bitch about the game and threaten to quit playing because you think it costs too much, yeah, we don't want to hear it and we will happily send you packing. On the other hand, if you ask what you can do to promote the game to friends on a tight budget with time and money, that's something we can help with. > BTW - The main point of my original post was the need for fewer > wallpaper cards in future expansions and the upcoming base set > (Camarilla Edition). That's where the cost issue comes in. Cost is a > sideline issue that develops out of the problems caused by too many > reprints, ultra rares, or cards that may be fairly useless in the long > run. Can we get back to that? Too many wallpaper cards and ultra > rares.... Not sure about ultra rares, but they already make an effort to avoid wallpaper cards. Sometimes it's tough to see how a new concept will be received. Give them credit for trying new things. > Thanks Noal. You've been really helpful in motivating me to expand > the details surrounding my post (I'm a little pissed off - the last > thing that I want to hear is that it's my fault that there's no play > group in Houston ...certainly not after all my effort ...successful > or not). Clear communication is essential for any productive conversation. Your explanation was in stark contrast to the picture you painted earlier. > PS I've recently met some people that play VTES in Galveston and > Northwestern Houston. Things are actually looking much better lately. Good. Glad to hear it. Hopefully things will go better from here on out. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You stood in line for hours for this movie? People who are willing to >do that are good prospects for a CGG - obsessive geeks. But Vampire >was an odd choice, don't you think? That would go nicely with Queen >of Darkness or Blade II but then, there probably wouldn't be much >standing in line in that case. Ah...I was beginning to wonder where you had wandered off to Andrew! You, as well as several others from the newsgroup (including Mr. Coupe) seem to have "vanished" lately...or maybe it's just because you guys actually have lives... =) >The smart game to have chosen was Garfield's latest CCG - the WotC >Star Wars game. That's just been released and so you'd all be >starting on equal terms. And it uses stills from the new movie - >you'd have had to fight the rest of the line off. > >But given the way the movie turned out, the really smart choice would >have been to be playing Heroclix in the line for Spiderman. I haven't >seen that movie yet but it's got to be better than Attack of the >Clones. Oh come on! Attack of the Clones totally owned Spiderman! Spiderman was okay I guess, but Episode II was SO much better. Cooler plot, cooler characters, cooler villains (Green Goblin was SO lame...). Anyway, Natalie Portman is much hotter than Kirsten Dunst (who is still good. She was awesome in Bring It On but I wasn't particularly impressed by her in Spiderman). And Hayden Christensen is a lot cuter than Tobey Maguire (eww!). In addition, Anakin's costume is a lot better than Spiderman's as well. Okay, ::gets off soapbox:: Um...let's talk about Jyhad/VTES again...? =) Halcyan 2

"Howard D" asked: > > How do you use Uriah Winter effectively? I've always lost him soon > > after bringing him out. What are you doing to make that minion work > > in a deck? "Noal McDonald" replied: > You don't lose Uriah. You shove him down your prey's throat and play > Seeds of Corruption to keep him there. > Now why would you want to give Uriah to your prey, you ask? > Well, if you have another copy of Uriah in your uncontrolled region, > you can play Betrayer. If you have Anson and The Parthenon, you can > play 3 Betrayers. (See my deck in Google archives: Winter of My > Betrayal) http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/Noal.htm#winter > Sounds iffy? > Well, you can use Vasilis, the Traitor of Don Cruez to play Revelation > of the Sire on Uriah to make him Brujah. Then according to Vasilis's > text, all of your Giovanni have +1 bleed. (See my deck in Google > archives: Uriah Winter, Trojan Horse of the Giovanni) http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/Noal.htm#uriahfinal http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/Noal.htm#uriah > Lots of vampires have specials set off by your prey controlling a > certain clan, etc. You make Uriah satsify that condition and you give > him to your prey. However, it is necessary to play Seeds of Corruption > to disable his text to keep him from moving further. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[snip] > > Ah...I was beginning to wonder where you had wandered off to Andrew! You, as > well as several others from the newsgroup (including Mr. Coupe) seem to have > "vanished" lately...or maybe it's just because you guys actually have lives... Wow, a life! Where can I download one of those?? [snip]

>Anyways, list of rares that are commonly useful, and what I think >the rarity should be: I don't agree that these are commonly useful. Possibly useful in large numbers but only for specific decks. Possibly uncommonly useful. >Jyhad/Vtes >Freak Drive (common) Changing rarity from rare to common is too much of a stretch. While the original design group made a mistake (though which mistake isn't clear, could have been one of several or more than one), uncommon would be a huge improvement today. >Immortal Grapple (fixed after vtes, hopefully stays uncommon) >Ivory Bow (should probably be uncommon) Unique piece of equipment. Sure, it can be thrown into virtually any deck which would be a reason to make it more common, but if it was properly costed, 2-3 pool, it wouldn't be an issue. >Kine Dominance / Dominate Kine (uncommon) Unusual effect at superior. Expensive. While a really good card, rares aren't supposed to be bad cards, just unusual. >Murder of Crows (uncommon) A natural evolution from Wolf Companion. If WC was better, this might not be as much of a concern. >Sengir Dagger (like the bow, but less so) The Embrace can go in virtually any deck. Along with Freak Drive, this is the card I hope becomes more common in the Cam set. >Dark Sovereigns >- uses only C/U rarity > >Ancient Hearts >Dreams of the Sphinx (common) A rare (slash fixed) that could go into any deck. But, it is unusual in what it does. In an ideal world, it would never have been made. In this one, seeing it get reprinted often enough that people don't have trouble getting them would be nice. Only so many cards can be moved down from rare to uncommon. I'd move Freak Drive or The Embrace first. >Temptation (uncommon) I don't have a problem with this being rare. Some rares should be cards that you want in large numbers if it's just for a specific deck. Something has to be rare, and stealing minions is a reasonably rareish mechanic. >Sabbat >Awe (uncommon) Have no problem with this being rare. It has a common close substitute which is more cost effective most of the time. >Daring the Dawn (if day op was useful/interesting enough to warrant a >second go, it probably shouldn't have been a rare :) >Derange (uncommon) Highly unusual effect. Doesn't go into multiple decks. This epitomizes what rares should be like. >Disarm (common) Go to torpor is not a common effect. It's also not a necessary card except for a hit for one and prevent deck. >Entombment (uncommon, maybe common) Go to torpor is not a common effect. Also, it only goes in one sort of deck. >Hungry Coyote, The (uncommon) It'd be nice to have a bunch of these. But, there's nothing that suggests it shouldn't be rare. If it wasn't limited to Sabbat, it'd be broken ... and, um, shouldn't be rare. >Intimidation (common) Intimidation shouldn't exist. It's stupidly redundant. Is the card commonish? Sure. Do I care that it's rare? No. Hopefully, I can trade some away at some point. >Palla Grande (uncommon) Cards that go into one sort of deck, even in large numbers, tend to make good rares. >FN >Creepshow Casino (uncommon) See Coyote except you don't need as many cuz it's not as useful. >Perfect Clarity (common) Um, you've got to be joking. A highly unusual effect at a high cost. Born to be rare. >Path of Bone (uncommon) >Path of Paradox (uncommon) Okay, Paths didn't need to be rare. >Week of Nightmares (uncommon) Because you really badly need 1-2, someone should get 4 in every box? How about this: make it rare ... instead of ultrarare? >BL >Armor of Terra (common) One deck does not a good common make. >Conscripted Statue (common) Ditto. >Elemental Stoicism (uncommon) Ditto, and this isn't even a good card. >Engling Fury (common) Yes. Now, sure, you won't have a lot of Ahrimanes decks, but it's perfectly reasonable to put these into every single Ahrimanes deck you will ever build. >Gift of Bellona (common) Unlike Engling, the effect is much more unusual. OTOH, it's essential. Since you've created uncommons in Bloodlines, uncommon is about right. >Muricia's Call (uncommon) >Neutral Guard (common) Unblockability is not a common effect. Scarce discipline as well. >Paris Opera House (uncommon) Unique locations aren't bad choices for rares as a general rule. >Shroud of Absence (common) Uncommon. The multidiscipline stuff came in two varieties: uncommon and rare. This is one that's straightforward and useful enough to be one of the uncommons. >Siren's Lure (common) Highly unusual effect. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to be rare, but it shouldn't be ultrarare and it should cost a blood. >Tabriz Assembly (uncommon) Cuz everyone needs a bunch of unique masters for a scarce "clan". >Unburdening the Beastial Soul (uncommon) Unusual effect in a scarce discipline. >Most of these aren't too bad. In particular, the Jyhad/Vtes set's >only really huge flaw was freak drive and IG, and IG got fixed. Then >there's other stuff that is kinda borderline between should be rare >and shouldn't be. BL is by far and away the worst offender. The DoC >are about 100 times better with lots of sirens lures. Engling Fury >helps the cats a bunch. The !Salubri weapon decks needed something >better than Gift of Bellona, but as that's all they have, they need >it. Even worse than rare, a number of generally useful cards to a deck playing the appropriate bloodline are R1. >> > Awe >> a rare that is easily substitited with Bewitching Oration and in most >> cases is inferior to Bewitching Oration. > >You can sub BO, but BO won't autopass any vote (barring DI/vote >cancelation). Awe + some blood will. Being able to autopass a vote with one Presence card isn't a particularly good thing for the game. But, anyway, there's only a small number of decks that have to use Awe repeatedly. >> > Shroud of absence >> a dual discipline rare card that combines the function of the inferior >> of two common cards. I would say this alone makes it corner case. > >Hell no. This is a stealth modifier which gives a free S:CE if you >get intercepted. Only 2 clans can use it heavily due to discipline >requirements, but so what? If the # of clans that can play it is a >factor, I guess all thaum cards should be rare because only the >Tremere can use them. Easy free stealth with the added bonus of combat defense. Just what Dominate/Obtenebration, a playable natural stealth bleed combination, was desperately looking for. I'm annoyed this card ever got made. >> > Shadow step >> a sabbat only rare that has plenty of substitutes in the form of >> maneuvers > >But not the superior, and not for obt. You can fake out but if you're >using SS you probably wanted to do something in combat offensively. The inferior is way too useful to have the card be so hard to get. It's far, far better than Fake Out. >> > Derange >> a Sabbat only rare which is useful mainly for removing prince's titles > >Superior is just flat out good. I think the inferior is better, but that's neither here nor there.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02052...@posting.google.com... > > I'm going to get around to making a weenie Gangrel rush deck. As I > don't like wasted actions, I want to make sure the opposing minion > isn't going to S:CE out of it. By using small cap vampires, the 2 pool > won't be too troublesome. I've got 7-8 Dog Packs now, so that should > be enough. Combine with Heidelburg to move them around and I figure > you've got a party. Now that I have enough to build a deck around, > we'll see what they're worth. > I don't like wasted actions either, which is why I don't spend one recruiting the Dog Pack.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: >There have always been a few "mistakes" in rarity, like >Freak Drive, but lately >the mistakes seem to be getting worse, and intentional. I see no evidence there's anything intentional. LSJ argued firmly that the proposed "power rares" in BL were not particularly useful. I don't think many of his arguments held much water, but I see no intent to print "power rares", and I do see intent for commonality to approximate usefulness. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

mpm...@attbi.com recommends: >Path of Bone (uncommon) >Path of Paradox (uncommon) >Week of Nightmares (uncommon) >Paris Opera House (uncommon) I don't think any clan-specific unique permanent or once-per-game should ever be anything other than rare. If the card turns over, like Palla Grande or Riddle Phantastique, uncommon is appropriate. Otherwise they get wallpapery. Most of your assessments I agree with. A useful, general-purpose unique should be uncommon: rare (Ivory Bow) is too rare and common (Barrens, Elder Library) is too common. [ quoted text not captured ]

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020523181547...@mb-mu.aol.com... > ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: > > >There have always been a few "mistakes" in rarity, like > >Freak Drive, but lately > >the mistakes seem to be getting worse, and intentional. > > I see no evidence there's anything intentional. LSJ argued > firmly that the proposed "power rares" in BL were not > particularly useful. I don't think many of his arguments > held much water, but I see no intent to print "power rares", > and I do see intent for commonality to approximate usefulness. > Ha! LSJ said that Darkling Trickery was an "anti-weapon card." That's not exactly an argument, that's just being blatantly out of touch with the game.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: >Ha! LSJ said that Darkling Trickery was an "anti-weapon card." That's not >exactly an argument, that's just being blatantly out of touch with the game. He didn't consider the offensive value of a maneuver. OK, so it's a goof. You never make goofs? I've certainly missed the value of cards in the past. [ quoted text not captured ]

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20020523134932...@mb-cg.aol.com>... > >Anyways, list of rares that are commonly useful, and what I think > >the rarity should be: > > I don't agree that these are commonly useful. Possibly useful in large numbers > but only for specific decks. Possibly uncommonly useful. Virtually no card with a discipline is made for all decks. > >Jyhad/Vtes > >Freak Drive (common) > Changing rarity from rare to common is too much of a stretch. What deck uses For and couldn't benefit from at least 2 or 3? > >Ivory Bow (should probably be uncommon) > Unique piece of equipment. Sure, it can be thrown into virtually any deck > which would be a reason to make it more common, but if it was properly costed, > 2-3 pool, it wouldn't be an issue. That is not the cost though, it is costed at 1. As such, I'd say it is appropriate use-wise for common slot. > >Kine Dominance / Dominate Kine (uncommon) > > Unusual effect at superior. Expensive. While a really good card, rares aren't > supposed to be bad cards, just unusual. The two effects combine for something that is often useful in one way or another. Location steal is commonly useful IMO. HGs, The Barrens, Media outlets, Info Highway, Parthenon, etc., all make this card useful in most games. > >Murder of Crows (uncommon) > A natural evolution from Wolf Companion. If WC was better, this might not be > as much of a concern. yah WC didn't need to cost a blood. > >Temptation (uncommon) > I don't have a problem with this being rare. Some rares should be cards that > you want in large numbers if it's just for a specific deck. Something has to > be rare, and stealing minions is a reasonably rareish mechanic. Most setite decks could use 1 or 2 imo. > >Derange (uncommon) > Highly unusual effect. Doesn't go into multiple decks. This epitomizes what > rares should be like. It is an unusual effect but I feel its useful often enough. If I had a deck with dem in it, I'd be tempted to put at least a few of these in. > >Disarm (common) > Go to torpor is not a common effect. So? > It's also not a necessary card except for > a hit for one and prevent deck. It is good in quite a few decks. > >Entombment (uncommon, maybe common) > Go to torpor is not a common effect. Also, it only goes in one sort of deck. Explain. > >Hungry Coyote, The (uncommon) > > It'd be nice to have a bunch of these. But, there's nothing that suggests it > shouldn't be rare. Actually, I'd say the previous statement does. > If it wasn't limited to Sabbat, it'd be broken ... and, um, > shouldn't be rare. Improves blood flow for more than 1/3rd of the vampires in the game. > >Palla Grande (uncommon) > Cards that go into one sort of deck, even in large numbers, tend to make good > rares. It goes into decks using a particular clan. So do the HGs, which are uncommon. > >FN > >Creepshow Casino (uncommon) > See Coyote except you don't need as many cuz it's not as useful. Just about every vote deck, and quite a few others, can benefit from this card. > >Perfect Clarity (common) > Um, you've got to be joking. A highly unusual effect at a high cost. Born to > be rare. The effect (stop deflections) is _awesome_, and absolutely worth 2 blood. > >Week of Nightmares (uncommon) > Because you really badly need 1-2, someone should get 4 in every box? How > about this: make it rare ... instead of ultrarare? Heh. > >BL > >Conscripted Statue (common) > Ditto. Superior is great stuff. It's like IotK except it's free and the resulting combat will never result in a 'hand strike for one, end of combat' as it can with IotK and a bad hand. > >Elemental Stoicism (uncommon) > Ditto, and this isn't even a good card. Humbug. for - prevent one damage obffor - agg->normal for the moment obfFOR - agg->normal forever Makes dawn opping a bit easier as you can take the action and not have to have prevent in hand. > >Gift of Bellona (common) > Unlike Engling, the effect is much more unusual. OTOH, it's essential. Since > you've created uncommons in Bloodlines, uncommon is about right. The !Salubri have no access to DW/CW, are *supposed* to be based on weapon combat, and can't generate any extra stealth - without the previously mentioned creepshow, anyways. They can dare the dawn only at inferior, and only 2 can do it at all, which means burn blood and go to torpor. Not a great way to get your combat machine started. Blissful Agony was a great rare for them. This wasn't. > >Neutral Guard (common) > Unblockability is not a common effect. There aren't too many ways to get the wonderful AUS/FOR ousting combination to go forward. This is one of them. > Scarce discipline as well. The whole SET is based around disciplines which all of 3-5 vampires will ever have. If Scarceness of the discipline mattered, all of BL should be rare, except Sanguinus/BB cards. > >Paris Opera House (uncommon) > Unique locations aren't bad choices for rares as a general rule. See HG > >Shroud of Absence (common) > Uncommon. The multidiscipline stuff came in two varieties: uncommon and rare. > This is one that's straightforward and useful enough to be one of the > uncommons. There aren't too many vampires with obt who don't have at least dom. Uncommon would be ok, as anything other than freaking R1 is a major improvement. But I really think that of all the multidiscipline cards, this should have been common. > >Siren's Lure (common) > Highly unusual effect. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to be rare, but it > shouldn't be ultrarare and it should cost a blood. A) It doesn't cost blood. I'm not proposing text changes, just rarity shuffles based on what the cards actually were printed as. B) The card is incredibly useful, as it makes DoC *much* harder to block. It's up there with Elder Impersonation, except it doesn't cost blood. > >Tabriz Assembly (uncommon) > Cuz everyone needs a bunch of unique masters for a scarce "clan". lalala free HG _and_ Elder Library lalala BL was not designed to help out decks that don't use the BL vampires. It is not a "normal" set in that respect. I could say, under the same line of reasoning, that conflagration should be rare b/c only the five Baali, each of whom are infernal, would want to use this card. As it turns out, summoning hellfire is at least as cool as popping claws with protean, and it's ranged. Yippie.

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message news:<20020523182208...@mb-mu.aol.com>... > mpm...@attbi.com recommends: > > >Path of Bone (uncommon) > >Path of Paradox (uncommon) > >Week of Nightmares (uncommon) > >Paris Opera House (uncommon) > > I don't think any clan-specific unique permanent or once-per-game should ever > be anything other than rare. If the card turns over, > like Palla Grande or Riddle Phantastique, uncommon is appropriate. > Otherwise they get wallpapery. HGs are clan specific unique master locations that cost 2 pool. I think uncommon is fine for them as you could reasonably want 1 or 2 for every deck with that clan. > Most of your assessments I agree with. A useful, general-purpose > unique should be uncommon: rare (Ivory Bow) is too rare and > common (Barrens, Elder Library) is too common. Barrens rocks too hard to only play one. If you get the second one while you have the first, execute the Ben Peal Manuever (barrens away the barrens). But yah, Elder Library and things like it can definitely be uncommon.

>> >Path of Bone (uncommon) >> >Path of Paradox (uncommon) >> >Week of Nightmares (uncommon) >> >Paris Opera House (uncommon) >> >> I don't think any clan-specific unique permanent or once-per-game should >ever >> be anything other than rare. If the card turns over, >> like Palla Grande or Riddle Phantastique, uncommon is appropriate. >> Otherwise they get wallpapery. > >HGs are clan specific unique master locations that cost 2 pool. I >think uncommon is fine for them as you could reasonably want 1 or 2 >for every deck with that clan. > Yeah, I think Uncommon (not Rare as CurtAdams asserts) is perfect for many unique clan cards. Besides HG, I really wouldn't like to see or get Ventrue Headquarters, Chantry, Backways, The Labyrinth, or Leonardo, Mortician as my rare in a pack of cards... Halcyan 2

>> >Anyways, list of rares that are commonly useful, and what I think >> >the rarity should be: >> >> I don't agree that these are commonly useful. Possibly useful in large >numbers >> but only for specific decks. Possibly uncommonly useful. > >Virtually no card with a discipline is made for all decks. Okay. It's not entirely clear how this follows from what I've said. >> >Jyhad/Vtes >> >Freak Drive (common) >> Changing rarity from rare to common is too much of a stretch. > >What deck uses For and couldn't benefit from at least 2 or 3? Every deck that plays Fortitude should play some number of Freak Drives. Every deck would like to be able to play Freak Drive. The card was a mistake. But, anyway, changing a card from rare to common will piss off a lot of people. If it's uncommon, people will at least get some, possibly enough to satisfy them. >> >Ivory Bow (should probably be uncommon) >> Unique piece of equipment. Sure, it can be thrown into virtually any deck >> which would be a reason to make it more common, but if it was properly >costed, >> 2-3 pool, it wouldn't be an issue. > >That is not the cost though, it is costed at 1. As such, I'd say it >is appropriate use-wise for common slot. You mean uncommon, right? My heart's not into arguing that it should be rare. I just don't really care. If it gets played a lot, it will get contested all over the place, though. >> >Kine Dominance / Dominate Kine (uncommon) >> >> Unusual effect at superior. Expensive. While a really good card, rares >aren't >> supposed to be bad cards, just unusual. > >The two effects combine for something that is often useful in one way >or another. Location steal is commonly useful IMO. HGs, The Barrens, >Media outlets, Info Highway, Parthenon, etc., all make this card >useful in most games. Something has to be rare. This is tolerable as a rare for the reasons I gave. And, we don't see location screw (steal or burn) all that often as it is. Tried adding more Arsons to decks for a while only to find that I didn't have enough targets I cared about to waste the slots on them. >> >Temptation (uncommon) >> I don't have a problem with this being rare. Some rares should be cards >that >> you want in large numbers if it's just for a specific deck. Something has >to >> be rare, and stealing minions is a reasonably rareish mechanic. > >Most setite decks could use 1 or 2 imo. And, if you buy two FoS starters, you get two. Needing 1-2 of a card that's clan specific suggests rare to me. Actually, I figure someone would want about 6 of these for a FoS deck. Not everyone plays FoS. It's just not realistic for everyone to have a number of cards for every deck they might want to build given NCL. >> >Derange (uncommon) >> Highly unusual effect. Doesn't go into multiple decks. This epitomizes >what >> rares should be like. > >It is an unusual effect but I feel its useful often enough. If I had >a deck with dem in it, I'd be tempted to put at least a few of these >in. *If* you *had* a deck with Dem? You'd be *tempted*? And, this being rare hurts you how? >> >Disarm (common) >> Go to torpor is not a common effect. > >So? > >> It's also not a necessary card except for >> a hit for one and prevent deck. > >It is good in quite a few decks. I usually don't have more than one deck built at any one time where it would be useful. Unless I build around it, I only put in 1-2 copies as Potence should be able to send vampires to torpor without it. It wouldn't kill me if it were uncommon. It wouldn't kill me if it never existed either. But, it's not necessary to a lot of decks given that Potence has a couple of other cards that help put vampires in torpor. >> >Entombment (uncommon, maybe common) >> Go to torpor is not a common effect. Also, it only goes in one sort of >deck. > >Explain. Doesn't go into every Lasombra deck (well, might toss in one into most Lasombra decks that eschew fighting as a prayer). Doesn't go into even every Lasombra deck that wants to fight; for instance, I didn't play any in my Shadow Parasite deck. So, you're down to only in Lasombra decks (now, Kiasyd are another possibility) where you either want to fight at close range or can tolerate fighting at close range hoping for the occasional Arms of the Abyss/Entombment combo. That's not a wide range of decks in my book. >> >Hungry Coyote, The (uncommon) >> >> It'd be nice to have a bunch of these. But, there's nothing that suggests >it >> shouldn't be rare. > >Actually, I'd say the previous statement does. I want a lot of a lot of cards. By itself, not a good guide for what shouldn't be rare. >> If it wasn't limited to Sabbat, it'd be broken ... and, um, >> shouldn't be rare. > >Improves blood flow for more than 1/3rd of the vampires in the game. A card you usually put no more than one copy of into a third of your decks (or 2-4 into an increasingly small number of decks) is borderline, so I can't get too worked up about it being rare. >> >Palla Grande (uncommon) >> Cards that go into one sort of deck, even in large numbers, tend to make >good >> rares. > >It goes into decks using a particular clan. >So do the HGs, which are uncommon. HGs can go into any deck playing the clan. This doesn't belong in every !Toreador deck, making it more specialized. >> >FN >> >Creepshow Casino (uncommon) >> See Coyote except you don't need as many cuz it's not as useful. > >Just about every vote deck, and quite a few others, can benefit from >this card. You consider it more useful than I, then. I wouldn't put it in every vote deck, and I rarely ever put it in any other sort of deck. >> >Perfect Clarity (common) >> Um, you've got to be joking. A highly unusual effect at a high cost. Born >to >> be rare. > >The effect (stop deflections) is _awesome_, and absolutely worth 2 >blood. So, the card doesn't suck. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be rare. >> >BL >> >Conscripted Statue (common) >> Ditto. > >Superior is great stuff. It's like IotK except it's free and the >resulting combat will never result in a 'hand strike for one, end of >combat' as it can with IotK and a bad hand. I have 6 Conscripted Statues in a deck. It's not that useful. And, I specifically built with the card in mind. Haven't considered putting it in any other Gargoyle decks. Sounds to me like a perfect rare. >> >Gift of Bellona (common) >> Unlike Engling, the effect is much more unusual. OTOH, it's essential. >Since >> you've created uncommons in Bloodlines, uncommon is about right. > >The !Salubri have no access to DW/CW, are *supposed* to be based on >weapon combat, and can't generate any extra stealth - without the >previously mentioned creepshow, anyways. They can dare the dawn only >at inferior, and only 2 can do it at all, which means burn blood and >go to torpor. Not a great way to get your combat machine started. > >Blissful Agony was a great rare for them. This wasn't. So, uncommon is still too rare? >> Scarce discipline as well. > >The whole SET is based around disciplines which all of 3-5 vampires >will ever have. If Scarceness of the discipline mattered, all of BL >should be rare, except Sanguinus/BB cards. Big difference between 3 vampires having a discipline and 5 having a discipline. Add in that getting 3 of those 3 in play at the same time is heavily discouraged and that the 3 are all rares themselves. Being a card for a scarce discipline or scarce clan matters a lot. >> >Paris Opera House (uncommon) >> Unique locations aren't bad choices for rares as a general rule. >See HG See Twisted Forest for a counterexample, that's also very similar. Something has to be rare. I find clan specific unique locations tolerable as rares most of the time. HGs have always been considered more staple (must be a better way to say that) as "every" clan gets one. >> >Siren's Lure (common) >> Highly unusual effect. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to be rare, but >it >> shouldn't be ultrarare and it should cost a blood. > >A) It doesn't cost blood. I'm not proposing text changes, just rarity >shuffles based on what the cards actually were printed as. So, any card that mistakenly is made overpowered should automatically not be rare? Kind of don't know that until after the cards are distributed. >B) The card is incredibly useful, as it makes DoC *much* harder to >block. It's up there with Elder Impersonation, except it doesn't cost >blood. Okay. Maybe, the card shouldn't exist at all given that it's "free" unblockability and a rulings headache. >> >Tabriz Assembly (uncommon) >> Cuz everyone needs a bunch of unique masters for a scarce "clan". > >lalala free HG _and_ Elder Library lalala >BL was not designed to help out decks that don't use the BL vampires. >It is not a "normal" set in that respect. I could say, under the same >line of reasoning, that conflagration should be rare b/c only the five >Baali, each of whom are infernal, would want to use this card. As it >turns out, summoning hellfire is at least as cool as popping claws >with protean, and it's ranged. Yippie. You have to be playing one of three rare vampires in the game. I don't see any need for owning more than two, with three being about the limit of desirability. For every card that wouldn't be rare, another card has to be (well, sort of). Have to tolerate that certain rares are going to be cards you, I, or some other individual may want to have more of/a lot of. The only times a card being rare should be particularly undesirable is when: the card is absolutely essential to some sort of strategy that the game encourages such as Gift of Bellona for !Salubri; or, the card is good in a fair number of decks (admittedly, vague as to what a fair number means). While I find it interesting trying to determine what should or shouldn't be rare, mistakes get made, some cards are made rare to bolster sales, and some are made rare simply because something has to be rare, so there's a limit to how productive it is to wish certain cards weren't made rare.

<SNIP> > > Oh come on! Attack of the Clones totally owned Spiderman! Spiderman was okay I > guess, but Episode II was SO much better. Cooler plot, cooler characters, > cooler villains (Green Goblin was SO lame...). Anyway, Natalie Portman is much > hotter than Kirsten Dunst (who is still good. She was awesome in Bring It On > but I wasn't particularly impressed by her in Spiderman). And Hayden > Christensen is a lot cuter than Tobey Maguire (eww!). In addition, Anakin's > costume is a lot better than Spiderman's as well. > <SNIP> > > Halcyan 2 Ok, I realise this is completely off topic but WHAT THE F#CK?!?!? Did you even see both those movies!!! Star Wars was pretty cool, much improved on Phantom Menace, but still not a patch on any of the original 3. Certainly an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours (and for the record I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan - ask me anything :) But Spiderman, I only have one word - Wow. It was SO cool. Exactly how I remembered the cartoon of it from my youth. J. Jonah Jamieson was funny as hell as as for Natalie Portman vs. Kirsten Dunst don't even go there.... Natalie Portman, nice, 'girl next door' type, athletic figure, smallish 'rack', I score her 7.5 out of 10. Kirsten Dunst, major hottie, huge breasts and for the alley scene alone scores 9 out of 10... Oh yeah, and something about VTES too... Err, we want more Ventrue with Obfuscate :) Marty

> Ah...I was beginning to wonder where you had wandered off to Andrew! Right now, I have wandered to Oakland for Kublacon (www.kublacon.com). The Bloodlines event looks promising (Bloodlines crypt only). What clan would you fancy for this? Andrew

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I don't like wasted actions either, which is why I don't > spend one recruiting the Dog Pack. When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, you'll find that it is not a wasted action. If S:CE isn't prevelent in the game, you can always ditch them. Regards, Noal

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020523230202...@mb-ba.aol.com... > ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: > > >Ha! LSJ said that Darkling Trickery was an "anti-weapon card." That's not > >exactly an argument, that's just being blatantly out of touch with the game. > > He didn't consider the offensive value of a maneuver. OK, so it's a > goof. You never make goofs? I've certainly missed the value of cards > in the past. > I didn't say it wasn't a goof. But it is a goof that could only be caused by being completely out of touch. For months, people have been trying to trade for Darkling Trickery's, complaining about their rarity, bragging about how many they had, etc. Presumably, LSJ would be involved with some playtesting, or at least in touch with people who have playtested. One would think he still plays the game every once in a while... and still, he thinks that DT is an anti-weapon card??? He thinks that Toreador Bane was a good common card? Whether it's ignorance or malice that is causing bad rarity distribution isn't important... what's important is that it should be fixed.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02052...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, you have severly misjudged the metagame if you're playing a protean combat deck. And if you've misjudged that metagame that badly, how would you know to play with Dog Packs? ;)

and for the record I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan - ask me anything name of luke's co-pilot in the battle for hoth? =] [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote: > > >> >Jyhad/Vtes > >> >Freak Drive (common) > >> Changing rarity from rare to common is too much of a stretch. > > > >What deck uses For and couldn't benefit from at least 2 or 3? > > Every deck that plays Fortitude should play some number of Freak Drives. Every > deck would like to be able to play Freak Drive. The card was a mistake. But, > anyway, changing a card from rare to common will piss off a lot of people. If > it's uncommon, people will at least get some, possibly enough to satisfy them. I have a lot of fortitude decks which use few or no Freak Drives. Weeny fortitude decks: 1) solve the same problem by having lots of minions; and 2) can't afford to spend the extra blood to Freak; and 3) because they're weenies, they seldom get that much out of one extra action. Older vampires are a much different story. Fred

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > I have a lot of fortitude decks which use few or no Freak Drives. Weeny > fortitude decks..... But is that because you genuinely eschew the card, or is it because you don't have many, and shuffling them in and out of decks is a pain? Just curious. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > I have a lot of fortitude decks which use few or no Freak Drives. Weeny > > fortitude decks..... > > But is that because you genuinely eschew the card, or is it because you > don't have many, and shuffling them in and out of decks is a pain? Just > curious. Why do you think it's not for the reasons I gave? If I had meant that I didn't own enough of them, I would have said so. This is never an issue for me. If I didn't have sufficient number of a card, I'd proxy, at least long enough to test a deck. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3CEEA6CC...@removethis.com... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > > > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > I have a lot of fortitude decks which use few or no Freak Drives. Weeny > > > fortitude decks..... > > > > But is that because you genuinely eschew the card, or is it because you > > don't have many, and shuffling them in and out of decks is a pain? Just > > curious. > > Why do you think it's not for the reasons I gave? If I had meant that I > didn't own enough of them, I would have said so. > Because even in a weenie deck, it's better to have Freak Drives than not to have them. If you don't have the blood or don't have extra actions to take, you can hunt and FD to cycle. Of course, in a straight weenie bleed deck, you would have nothing to do other than bleed, but with just a few other actions, it becomes useful to have 4-6 FD's in.

"Oliver Frey" <sonnenk...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9961a5c78bafaa24c08...@mygate.mailgate.org... > and for the record I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan - ask me anything > name of luke's co-pilot in the battle for hoth? Oh please, that's easy. And for my money, Natalie Portman is more attractive than Kirsten Dunst...the athletic figure is all good. Anyway, I totally disagree with Marty that we need more Ventrue with OBF. What we really need is more Toreador with...umm...actually, anything useful. And more Tremere with Potence. Xian

mpm...@attbi.com writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote >> I don't think any clan-specific unique permanent or once-per-game should ever >> be anything other than rare. If the card turns over, >> like Palla Grande or Riddle Phantastique, uncommon is appropriate. >> Otherwise they get wallpapery. >HGs are clan specific unique master locations that cost 2 pool. I >think uncommon is fine for them as you could reasonably want 1 or 2 >for every deck with that clan. Uncommon is way too common for HG. I suspect even Fred has many surplus hunting grounds. With the Jyhad rarities, you get one every 100 or so cards - you could have one in every deck if you used every card you own in a deck! If each hunting ground is rare, then "hunting ground" as a group is about a common, which is about right. Hunting grounds just back up my assertion that clan-specific uniques should be rare. For really good stuff, R1 is a too rare and R2 is right. No more common than that. >Barrens rocks too hard to only play one. If you get the second one >while you have the first, execute the Ben Peal Manuever (barrens away >the barrens). But yah, Elder Library and things like it can >definitely be uncommon. I never play 2. Often not even one. From a metagame perspective, if *everybody* thought it was so good, it wouldn't be, due to contestation. So, it's necessarily not *that* good. [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com writes: >Yeah, I think Uncommon (not Rare as CurtAdams asserts) is perfect for many >unique clan cards. Besides HG, I really wouldn't like to see or get Ventrue >Headquarters, Chantry, Backways, The Labyrinth, or Leonardo, Mortician as my >rare in a pack of cards... Only because you already have about a dozen of each since they're too common. They're perfect cards for rare - nice in certain decks (except) labyrinth) yet not essential. And I maintain it's a bizarre opinion that if a card is poor, you want to get *more* of them. You'd rather have 3 Labyrinth and one Behind You than 3 Behind You and 1 Labyrinth? Why?? What do they put in the water around you? If a rare is crummy, at least I only get one and I can probably use that for a laugh or a collection. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:acmjds$qjebs$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de... > > Anyway, I totally disagree with Marty that we need more Ventrue with OBF. What > we really need is more Toreador with...umm...actually, anything useful. > More Toreador with Serpentis would really make *my* day. Or Protean. ;) > And more Tremere with Potence. > For IG/B2W?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<MMCH8.103003$Po6.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Agree!!! we need More Toreador ( U really wanna say Followers no?? ;-) ) with something useful & more cheap & of course Tremere with Potence , clearly is for IG/B2W!!!! O too with Fortitude ( For BoS /SoN // Bos/UP))) Yours : A spanish drunken guy :-)

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:MMCH8.103003$Po6.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... [snip me] > More Toreador with Serpentis would really make *my* day. Or Protean. ;) Heh. Don't they have enough S:CE already? :) Toreador with...man, I can't even think of what would go well for them. Toreador with THA would be amusing. > > And more Tremere with Potence. > > > For IG/B2W? Among other things. There's always Rutor's Hand POT multi-rush. But I may have to revisit my old IG/B2W/Walk of Flame deck one of these days. Just to be annoying. Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, well, that at least addresses the issue directly. No, I'm not making excuses. I genuinely disagree. Adding the Freak Drive dilutes your deck and doesn't help you that much. Instead of drawing the action card you want to draw, you draw a Freak Drive you need to cycle which exposes you to intercept and takes up a spot in your hand so you can't plan until after you're done hunting and cycling the card. If you get intercepted, your inferior Fortitude weenies can't cycle the card. If you needed to hunt to increase blood on the minion, the cycling of the Freak Drive is counterproductive. And yes this does come up! You're frequently running with one blood on every vampire and playing Tribute to the Master to refill your pool - meaning everybody has to hunt. I understand why Freak Drive is nice when you have some prince with superior fortitude and really outrageous things he could be doing. But drawing them while playing blood-poor weenies with inferior Fortitude just doesn't work well. I sometimes throw a couple in for surprise value but I've seldom found they make much difference. Fred

"Oliver Frey" <sonnenk...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<9961a5c78bafaa24c08...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > and for the record I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan - ask me anything > name of luke's co-pilot in the battle for hoth? > > =] Dack Ralter. And yes, that is easy. His wingman - Derek 'Hobbie' Klivian, pilot of Rogue 4. Something a bit more challenging next time, eh? :) Marty

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<B7CC9D5E138A6143.24DC7819...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ahrimanes - probably the best all rounders from Bloodlines. Marty

On Sun, 26 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Why do you think it's not for the reasons I gave? If I had meant that I > > > didn't own enough of them, I would have said so. Because it seemed so bone-headed that I thought there must be another one that I either missed or you didn't state..... > Ah, well, that at least addresses the issue directly. No, I'm not making > excuses. I genuinely disagree. Adding the Freak Drive dilutes your deck and > doesn't help you that much. Instead of drawing the action card you want to > draw, you draw a Freak Drive you need to cycle which exposes you to intercept > and takes up a spot in your hand so you can't plan until after you're done > hunting and cycling the card. If you get intercepted, your inferior Fortitude > weenies can't cycle the card. If you needed to hunt to increase blood on the > minion, the cycling of the Freak Drive is counterproductive. And yes this > does come up! You're frequently running with one blood on every vampire and > playing Tribute to the Master to refill your pool - meaning everybody has to > hunt. ....and, "What I'm *really* talking about is a weenie fortitude deck with a bunch of guys that only have one and I'm playing a buch of Tributes to the Master" counts as that "hidden" explanation nicely. > I understand why Freak Drive is nice when you have some prince with superior > fortitude and really outrageous things he could be doing. But drawing them > while playing blood-poor weenies with inferior Fortitude just doesn't work well. > I sometimes throw a couple in for surprise value but I've seldom found they make > much difference. The only really useful engine with FOR weenies, I mean really weenies, is Trap/Undead Persistance/Rapid Healing. You are every bit as dangerous at zero blood as you are at, say, two, and it's almost always a losing deal for the other player to mutually torporize each other. Of course flooding your deck with a ton of FD would be a bad idea, but nobody was proposing that (or at least I'm not). But generic deck "X" would be better with a few in there. You may think your specific deck with all the Tributes and minions with one blood may not benefit from it, but I do. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 May 2002 04:19:55 -0700, Marty wrote: >> Right now, I have wandered to Oakland for Kublacon (www.kublacon.com). >> The Bloodlines event looks promising (Bloodlines crypt only). What >> clan would you fancy for this? > >Ahrimanes - probably the best all rounders from Bloodlines. I didn't get to play in that event but took a look at it. There were some Ahrimanes there but tt was won by the Daughters of Cacophony who swept the final. Andrew

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Sun, 26 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > Why do you think it's not for the reasons I gave? If I had meant that I > > > > didn't own enough of them, I would have said so. > > Because it seemed so bone-headed that I thought there must be another one > that I either missed or you didn't state..... Well, I'm glad you're so open-minded about it. If you don't agree with me that Freak Drives aren't that good for weeny Fortitude decks, then it's probably more straight-forward to just say that at the top. Anyway... > > > Ah, well, that at least addresses the issue directly. No, I'm not making > > excuses. I genuinely disagree. Adding the Freak Drive dilutes your deck and > > doesn't help you that much. Instead of drawing the action card you want to > > draw, you draw a Freak Drive you need to cycle which exposes you to intercept > > and takes up a spot in your hand so you can't plan until after you're done > > hunting and cycling the card. If you get intercepted, your inferior Fortitude > > weenies can't cycle the card. If you needed to hunt to increase blood on the > > minion, the cycling of the Freak Drive is counterproductive. And yes this > > does come up! You're frequently running with one blood on every vampire and > > playing Tribute to the Master to refill your pool - meaning everybody has to > > hunt. > > ....and, "What I'm *really* talking about is a weenie fortitude deck with > a bunch of guys that only have one and I'm playing a buch of Tributes to > the Master" counts as that "hidden" explanation nicely. I'm not sure what "hidden explanation" you see in it. Weenies are weenies because they don't have much capacity. You're *always* at or very near having only one blood. Tributes are the logical - hence I would think most common - form of pool management for weenies unless they're political weenies of a single clan (in which case Consanguineous Boon is easier). So what was hidden? > > > I understand why Freak Drive is nice when you have some prince with superior > > fortitude and really outrageous things he could be doing. But drawing them > > while playing blood-poor weenies with inferior Fortitude just doesn't work well. > > I sometimes throw a couple in for surprise value but I've seldom found they make > > much difference. > > The only really useful engine with FOR weenies, I mean really weenies, is > Trap/Undead Persistance/Rapid Healing. You are every bit as dangerous at > zero blood as you are at, say, two, and it's almost always a losing deal > for the other player to mutually torporize each other. That's definitely a different type of deck. I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your claim that it's the "only really useful engine". What do you mean by "engine"? A card-flow-based deck? If you simply means it's the only productive way you can see using fortitude weenies at all, I'm not sure I agree. > Of course flooding > your deck with a ton of FD would be a bad idea, but nobody was proposing > that (or at least I'm not). But generic deck "X" would be better with a > few in there. You may think your specific deck with all the Tributes and > minions with one blood may not benefit from it, but I do. As I said, I've used a few. I wind up discarding them as often as not. That point speaks for itself. Fred

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > If you don't agree with me that Freak Drives aren't that good for weeny Fortitude > decks, then it's probably more straight-forward to just say that at the top. > Anyway... I don't agree. But, when I made my original post, I didn't catch your explanation -- I don't believe there was one -- as to *why* you didn't think they were good. That's why there were, you know, words like "just curious" in there. > I'm not sure what "hidden explanation" you see in it. Weenies are weenies > because they don't have much capacity. You're *always* at or very near having > only one blood. Tributes are the logical - hence I would think most common - > form of pool management for weenies unless they're political weenies of a single > clan (in which case Consanguineous Boon is easier). So what was hidden? There's nothing "logical" about Tributes in this deck. Blood Doll still kicks its ass, hands down. So, if your argument rested on this "obvious" assumption that we're all supposed to make, only the assumption isn't obvious, then it would be...... hidden? > That's definitely a different type of deck. I'm not sure I understand the > meaning of your claim that it's the "only really useful engine". What do you > mean by "engine"? A card-flow-based deck? If you simply means it's the only > productive way you can see using fortitude weenies at all, I'm not sure I > agree. I mean that it's the core around which the rest of the deck revolves. I think you can tweak the percentages of rush and block and bleed, but that three card combo is what supports all those things. I tend to play tool-boxy myself, and I'm sure you can posit the deck that has a little of this and a little of that, but I think for a potentially Tier-1 deck with FOR weenies, that combo is the only way to fly. > As I said, I've used a few. I wind up discarding them as often as not. That > point speaks for itself. *Chuckle* [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> I don't like wasted actions either, which is why I don't >>> spend one recruiting the Dog Pack. >> >> When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, >> you'll find that it is not a wasted action. If S:CE isn't prevelent in >> the game, you can always ditch them. >> > When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, > you have severly misjudged the metagame if you're playing a protean > combat deck. And if you've misjudged that metagame that badly, how > would you know to play with Dog Packs? ;) I don't know what the fuck you're talking about and I'm pretty sure you don't either. I'm talking about building an effective weenie Gangrel rush deck. The biggest weakness in Gangrel decks is S:CE. Dog Pack is an effective counter because, like IG, it prevents them from playing it. Because it's a permanent, I don't have to use too many and if S:CE isn't being used, I can ditch them. I can even Heidelburg them from one to another. Yes, it costs 2 pool, but when effectively used, it's worth it. As for judging the metagame, that's a bullshit argument if I ever saw one. Failing to address S:CE when building a rush combat deck isn't misjudging the metagame...it's being an blithering idiot. Noal

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02052...@posting.google.com... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> > > When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, > > you have severly misjudged the metagame if you're playing a protean > > combat deck. And if you've misjudged that metagame that badly, how > > would you know to play with Dog Packs? ;) > > I don't know what the fuck you're talking about and I'm pretty sure > you don't either. > Oh, quit the idiotic posturing for once, Noal. Or do you have problems responding on a reasonable level? The point is that a 20-30 S:CE deck is a bad deck in any kind of normal environment. Only a twisted metagame will let people get away with playing such a deck, and if you're in such a twisted metagame, playing a Protean combat deck with Dog Packs is a poor solution.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: >Whether it's ignorance or malice that is causing bad rarity distribution isn't >important... what's important is that it should be fixed. Yes. But the fixes for ignorance and malice are different. Actually, we can't really fix malice - if WW is out to print killer rares there's nothing to do but play other games. You may find the level of ignorance hard to believe, but there's certainly no objective evidence of malice. In particular, the playtesting system may not include a rarity evaluation, in which case ignorance is way more plausible. [ quoted text not captured ]

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk (Marty) wrote in message news:<a1d15b7.02052...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Which planet does Nar Sharda orbit?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> >>> When you find yourself the predator of a deck with 20-30 S:CE cards, >>> you have severly misjudged the metagame if you're playing a protean >>> combat deck. And if you've misjudged that metagame that badly, how >>> would you know to play with Dog Packs? ;) >> >> I don't know what the fuck you're talking about and I'm pretty sure >> you don't either. >> > Oh, quit the idiotic posturing for once, Noal. Or do you have problems > responding on a reasonable level? You want to talk about idiotic posturing and a lack of reasonable response?!? You seem to be the master of it. Perhaps you'd like to tell me how blithering on about judging a metagame, which is usually folly for large tournaments, has anything to do with effectively dealing with S:CE in a rush combat deck? > The point is that a 20-30 S:CE deck is a bad deck in any kind of normal > environment. No. The point is that rush decks MUST deal with S:CE or they will lose. Period. > Only a twisted metagame will let people get away with playing > such a deck, and if you're in such a twisted metagame, playing > a Protean combat deck with Dog Packs is a poor solution. Haven't seen a Protean/Dom deck in a while, have you? 20-30 Form of Mist/Earth Meld and a ton of Dominate cards usually does pretty well. Or maybe you haven't played against Jay Kristoff's Gangrel S:CE wall deck. You go ahead and judge metagames. I'll make decks that win games. Noal

In message <20020522191753...@mb-fm.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >Ah...I was beginning to wonder where you had wandered off to Andrew! You, as >well as several others from the newsgroup (including Mr. Coupe) seem to have >"vanished" lately...or maybe it's just because you guys actually have lives... > =) Sorry, trying to catch up at the moment. I managed to fall ill a while back whilst having to give up a week of my time to produce a book. This involved using a computer for hours each day which, due to whatever illness it was I had (there was something going round), made using a computer *painful*. As a result, reading personal mail and news was something I was doing briefly, once every few days - something from which my news and mail reading habits haven't had chance to properly recover. (When I started going through it *properly* yesterday, I had well over 5000 unread posts in r.g.t-c.j, which isn't helpful by any stretch of the imagination.) Combined with that was the fact that - due to producing the book - my Easter holidays got shortened to two weeks, so everything I was planning on doing then had to be compressed into about half the time I would've had. Just before Easter, everything went out the window completely in order to get my portfolio of essays finished. Similarly, at the end of April, everything went out the window to get my dissertation on Renaissance homiletic prose finished. Then, foolishly, agreeing to stand for various committees has meant I've had to do various things, like re-writing a web-site and so on. Travelling back and forth to Birmingham because of a) my own idiocy b) my brother's complete retardedness c) local politics meant that whole days just fly out the window. (It's 4 hours to do a journey of about 100 miles on public transport, due to the way the trains I need run - going via *London* is often about the same length of time, depending on when I leave.) My computer is trying to tell me it desperately wants me to re-install Windows or, preferably, buy XP, meaning that random crashes at various points (and consequent rebuilds I have to make of vital files) prevent me from doing anything e-mail or news related for several hours. (The system I use provides compressed and/or encrypted systems for mail and news (news is just compressed), but these have to be rebuilt. Because I cannot get round to deleting old news, these files are *BIG*.) The last time I got around to reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad, about a month ago (a bit less), I managed to prompt one of those joyously splendid crashes. Damnit. Oh, and some exams. Oh, I've also re-implemented Happy Families. I've seen the other script floating around but, unfortunately, it appears to cater to Internet Explorer's interpretation of Javascript and the Document Object Model which, unfortunately, means it doesn't work on a number of other browsers - this isn't something that can be easily rectified, because some of IE's interpretations of these are fundamentally incompatible with the right way of doing it. Mine's messy, the output looks rubbish, but it kinda, sorta works. To be tidied up in, hopefully, Some Time (tm). Data taken from Elder Library Deck Builder (with kind permission). It's done using a combination of MySQL and Perl, but the thing works at the user end via a simple HTML table and form so it should be usable on practically any platform capable of doing a POST of a form. Assuming I haven't managed to bug it. Anyway, it gave me an excuse to learn some SQL basics in a few spare moments (like all those bloody train trips). Bah. http://www.zephyr.org.uk/vtes/happyfamilies.html (I don't recommend putting this on links pages, as I may well move things round. I'm not planning to but...) -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02052...@posting.google.com... > > You want to talk about idiotic posturing and a lack of reasonable > response?!? > Yawn. No, not at all.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > The point is that a 20-30 S:CE deck is a bad deck in any kind of normal > environment. ??? Weenie Presence bleed has won 3 of the 6 tournaments I watched in LA this year. Not bad by any estimate. I know LA has a lot of bloat and combat, but I don't think it's *that* wierd. [ quoted text not captured ]

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020529205725...@mb-mk.aol.com... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > The point is that a 20-30 S:CE deck is a bad deck in any kind of normal > > environment. > > ??? Weenie Presence bleed has won 3 of the 6 tournaments > I watched in LA this year. Not bad by any estimate. I know > LA has a lot of bloat and combat, but I don't think it's *that* > wierd. > 30 S:CE in weenie presence bleed? This discussion has gone on before, with people talking about "S:CE decks" and so on. I wasn't part of it then, and I don't think I want to be part of it now. But in any case, an environment which supports decks with 30 S:CE is not the type of environment to be playing protean combat in, with or without Dog Pack. Such an environment needs some softening up first, with something like a good-old IG deck, or simply more rational defenses than blocking. 1/3rd of your deck being dead spots will jam anyone's hand. There are solutions to the "way-too-many majesties" decks, but Dog Pack is certainly one of the worst such solutions.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: >There are solutions to the "way-too-many majesties" decks, but >Dog Pack is certainly one of the worst such solutions. No, Dog Pack is pretty good for the same reason IG is: the best solution is to make them unable to play it. Not blocking means they still get all their bleeds through. 1-for-1 hosers like Psyche tend to be a losing contest from a metagame perspective, since Majesty is way more useful when your opponent lacks Psyche than vice versa. With Dog Pack they will lose the bleed, jam on the Majesty *and* probably lose a minion. Yes, it's expensive, yes, it's a permanent - but for hosing S:CE it's quite good. [ quoted text not captured ]

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk (Marty) wrote in message news:<a1d15b7.02052...@posting.google.com>... > <SNIP> > > > > Oh come on! Attack of the Clones totally owned Spiderman! Spiderman was okay I > > guess, but Episode II was SO much better. Cooler plot, cooler characters, > > cooler villains (Green Goblin was SO lame...). Anyway, Natalie Portman is much > > hotter than Kirsten Dunst (who is still good. She was awesome in Bring It On > > but I wasn't particularly impressed by her in Spiderman). And Hayden > > Christensen is a lot cuter than Tobey Maguire (eww!). In addition, Anakin's > > costume is a lot better than Spiderman's as well. > > > <SNIP> > > > > Halcyan 2 > > Ok, I realise this is completely off topic but WHAT THE F#CK?!?!? Did > you even see both those movies!!! Star Wars was pretty cool, much > improved on Phantom Menace, but still not a patch on any of the > original 3. Agreed, i found the political allegory plonkingly dull and fell asleep during the "love" scenes. i also didn't find the villains to be that villainous - a bit right-wing, perhaps, but not a patch on the Emperor and Darth Vadar. Certainly an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours > (and for the record I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan - ask me anything :) > > But Spiderman, I only have one word - Wow. It was SO cool. Exactly > how I remembered the cartoon of it from my youth. J. Jonah Jamieson > was funny as hell as as for Natalie Portman vs. Kirsten Dunst don't > even go there.... > Natalie Portman, nice, 'girl next door' type, athletic figure, > smallish 'rack', I score her 7.5 out of 10. Kirsten Dunst, major > hottie, huge breasts and for the alley scene alone scores 9 out of > 10... Mental note to self: Watch Spiderman. i was going to, anyway - enjoyed the trailer. > > Oh yeah, and something about VTES too... Err, we want more Ventrue > with Obfuscate :) Nah, we want more Toreadors with breasts. > > Marty

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02053...@posting.google.com>... > Mental note to self: Watch Spiderman. i was going to, anyway - enjoyed > the trailer. > > The music on the trailer is by Curve and is on a very, very cool album. > > Oh yeah, and something about VTES too... Err, we want more Ventrue > > with Obfuscate :) > > Nah, we want more Toreadors with breasts. > Malkavians with superior Mytherceria. And maybe a built-in untap effect. mattgreen

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020530014010...@mb-df.aol.com... > ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: > > >There are solutions to the "way-too-many majesties" decks, but > >Dog Pack is certainly one of the worst such solutions. > > No, Dog Pack is pretty good for the same reason IG is: > the best solution is to make them unable to play it. Not > blocking means they still get all their bleeds through. > Perhaps, but they end up being bleeds for 1, eventually, unless your grand predator is silly enough to help them cycle. On the other hand, the bleeds don't have to get through. If Presence weenies were that big of a deal in my area, I'd play Settites almost exclusively, along with Ecstasy, Temptation, Banner of Neutrality, and of course plenty of Corruptions in case it's my prey. Or play a good vote-and-bloat, where you either Telepathic Counter or Deflect large bleeds, take the small ones, and play Ancilla Empowerments and similar weenie-hosing votes. Combat in general is bad against weenies, whether you have S:CE hosing or not, because the vampires are disposable. If you end up being able to torporize one vampire a turn, I can rescue that vamp and let it hunt. That way, you end up incapacitating 2 of my minions, but not more. Or, if they're all 1 and 2 caps, I'll just bring out another. > Yes, it's expensive, yes, it's a permanent - but for > hosing S:CE it's quite good. > Well, I don't necessarily agree with you, but thank you for not inserting random insults and turning the discussion into a flamewar like somebody else... ;)

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >> You want to talk about idiotic posturing and a lack of reasonable >> response?!? >> > Yawn. No, not at all. Can't take a little well-deserved criticism, can you? *shakes head* You haven't addressed a single point I've raised in this thread with anything substantial. Rather than provide ANY supporting evidence to your belief that Dog Pack is a poor card, you become condescending and yammer on about judging a metagame. If that's how you build decks in Chicago, maybe me and some of the other Michigan boys ought to roll into town and play in one of your tournaments for an easy victory. Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: >Perhaps, but they end up being bleeds for 1, eventually, unless your grand >predator is silly enough to help them cycle. I wouldn't call such actions "silly". The only time I normally see a weenie presence bleed deck get stopped is when the table gangs up, and that often requires combat. The problem with "eventually" is that it's typically too late. By the time he jams on Majesty, he will on average have encountered over 7 + bleed cards (more due to discard) If you've taken, say, 5 Legals and 4 Socials, you've lost 23 pool and will continue to lose 5-6 plus bleed draws per turn - by turn 4 or so, to boot. The "don't block" strategy amplifies your defense but you have to have a defense and many decks defend against bleed with some form of combat. Such decks are forced to block and hope, even though they usually lose. >Combat in general is bad against weenies, whether you have S:CE >hosing or not, because the vampires are disposable. Combat is iffy, but other defenses are typically worse. The only thing that works well is the deflection deck - but those get *so* hosed when they sit next to combat. IG Rush combat IME is best, as the weenies are not that disposable if more than 1 goes down a turn. > If Presence weenies were that big of a deal in my >area, I'd play Settites almost exclusively, along with Ecstasy, Temptation, >Banner of Neutrality, and of course plenty of Corruptions in case it's my prey. I think that would have the same problem as a Deflection deck. I still have nightmares about the time I brought my Toreador vote-bloat- Telepathic deck to a tournament and sat next to 4 IG rush decks in 4 games. Ugh. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.02053...@posting.google.com... > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > >> You want to talk about idiotic posturing and a lack of reasonable > >> response?!? > >> > > Yawn. No, not at all. > > Can't take a little well-deserved criticism, can you? *shakes head* > You haven't addressed a single point I've raised in this thread with > I'm not the one who decided to take a simple discussion of a card and turn it into a personal attack. You can continue the rest of this flamewar yourself, if you want to. I'm not going to address poorly supported points when they're interspersed with random insults.

mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote in message news:<a346f9cb.02053...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh CHRIST!!!! We so DON'T wanna see that.... In fact, we want Folderol to become one of the first restricted cards (only6 per deck), along with Ascendance and Protracted Investment.... Boy would that solve some problems... :) Marty

In message <a1d15b7.02053...@posting.google.com>, Marty <martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk> writes: >In fact, we want >Folderol to become one of the first restricted cards (only6 per deck), You appear to have mis-spelt "only 6 per planet". [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> Right now, I have wandered to Oakland for Kublacon (www.kublacon.com). >>> The Bloodlines event looks promising (Bloodlines crypt only). What >>> clan would you fancy for this? >> >>Ahrimanes - probably the best all rounders from Bloodlines. > >I didn't get to play in that event but took a look at it. There were >some Ahrimanes there but tt was won by the Daughters of Cacophony who >swept the final. I thought it was an interesting format prior. Playing in it did nothing to change my mind. I was surprised at how weenie Presenceish the DoC deck could get. Decks played: DoC Presence bleed w/ some votes HoS vote HoS w/ weapons Ahrimanes intercept combat Kiasyd unfocused (might insult "toolbox" to call it that) Samedi stealth bleed !Salubri fight Trujah w/o combat (from what I could see) Expected Blood Brothers.

<snip> > > For IG/B2W? > > Among other things. There's always Rutor's Hand POT multi-rush. > > But I may have to revisit my old IG/B2W/Walk of Flame deck one of these days. > Just to be annoying. > > Xian What is "B2W"??

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > >Personally, I don't recommend this game to my friends because it costs > >too much to really get into it. I recently held an informal "demo" of > >the game while waiting in line to see the new Star Wars movie. We had > >a few hours to kill and we just sat down in line, poured the blood > >counters out on that weird movie theater carpet, and I loaned each one > >of them a deck (I put several decks in my car just in case). Their > >wives or girlfriends all wandered off, but the guys found it fairly > >interesting. It was a great way to kill some time and most of them > >thought it was kind of fun. > > You stood in line for hours for this movie? Yeah, I know... it's a bit ridiculous. There were about 9 of us and everyone wanted to sit together. One guy organized it and bought all the tickets ahead of time (we paid him back). But at least we had fun hanging out in line (we used the free refill on our huge bucket o' popcorn many times :o) People who are willing to > do that are good prospects for a CGG - obsessive geeks. Classic. :o) And totally true... But Vampire > was an odd choice, don't you think? That would go nicely with Queen > of Darkness or Blade II but then, there probably wouldn't be much > standing in line in that case. No line whatsoever for those movies. I thought they were both a little weak. Blade 1 was much better (IMHO) and the books by Anne Rice were definitely better than Queen of the Damned (it was ok, but the ending fell flat). ...speaking of which, when is White Wolf going to make a movie based on The World of Darkness? Blade proved that the special effects are up to the task and that there is a huge market for the genre. And there is a ton of background material (clan books, novels, etc.). It could actually grow into a series of films if it was done correctly... or maybe a tv show spin off... Anyone know if there are any plans for a movie? Or did they already make one and I missed it? > The smart game to have chosen was Garfield's latest CCG - the WotC > Star Wars game. That's just been released and so you'd all be > starting on equal terms. And it uses stills from the new movie - > you'd have had to fight the rest of the line off. The Star Wars game would have been much better given where we were and the fact that most of them had never even seen Jyhad before (Star Wars is much easier to play) ...and the girls might have been more likely to jump in for a few rounds. However, I just happened to think of bringing some Vampire decks at the last minute (before driving up to Houston to meet everyone). I wasn't sure if anyone would even want to play. Besides, I wouln't want to buy a bunch of Star Wars cards for a one time appearance. I've played it once and it seems pretty cool, but I'm not going to buy any cards or get into it. > But given the way the movie turned out, the really smart choice would > have been to be playing Heroclix in the line for Spiderman. I haven't > seen that movie yet but it's got to be better than Attack of the > Clones. The game is good too. Five of us had good fun with just a > couple of starters the other day. It'd be fun to collect but the > collecting looks fairly optional Really? How's that? - which is just as well as it's sold > out here in London. With games like this as the competition, you need > a good reason to get into something as heavy as Vampire. True. I'm still trying to figure out how to indroduce Vampire to people in a way that's fun, easy to learn, and not too expensive. Any suggestions? Anyone?? > It's a crowded market now. Mark Rein.Hagen doesn't seem to have had > much success with his Z-G miniature/CCG hybrid. Z-Man are launching > another new format soon with their game Warchon. It's a bookmark game > which is designed to be played while standing in line. What's a bookmark game? But does any > of this help you get to the head of the line? We were second in line. If you get there early enough, you don't have to move at all. :o) Maybe if one uses LARP > rules where you cross your arms to become invisible ... > > Andrew Cheers, Howard

"HD" <hdma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c0922a66.02060...@posting.google.com... > > ...speaking of which, when is White Wolf going to make a movie based > on The World of Darkness? Blade proved that the special effects are > up to the task and that there is a huge market for the genre. And > there is a ton of background material (clan books, novels, etc.). It > could actually grow into a series of films if it was done correctly... > or maybe a tv show spin off... Anyone know if there are any plans > for a movie? Or did they already make one and I missed it? There was already a TV show, Kindred: The Embraced. I don't think it lasted a whole season. Rich

"HD" asked: > What is "B2W"?? Blood to Water. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In message <viAK8.107210$Oa1.10...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, Rich Shipley <ri...@rtgames.com> writes: >There was already a TV show, Kindred: The Embraced. I don't think it lasted >a whole season. It did - but bear in mind that not all programmes are designed around the half-yearly style batches of programmes like Star Trek or similar. The actor playing the Ventrue Prince in it died in a motorcycle accident at one point, however. Not that that would necessarily have stopped anything being done but it makes things trickier, I guess. I also doubt that the show's ratings were vaguely passable based on how many people really, really loathed it. (Follow-ups set to .jyhad, as the only place where there is vaguely relevant.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Rich Shipley wrote: > There was already a TV show, Kindred: The Embraced. I don't think it lasted > a whole season. There was no such show. It is not possible that a game so rich in setting could have inspired such a poor product. Therefore, it stands to reason that some other subject matter was the basis for the television event. Why MRH didn't sue, we'll never know for sure, but he was probably busy developing X: The Y, the White Wolf answer to modular role-playing ala GURPS. Please refrain from mentioning this non-show in the future. Thanks, -JW > > Rich

Jordan Wolbrum wrote: > Please refrain from mentioning this non-show in the future. But hey! How can we forget the might of Cash, the most fabulous Gangrel in the world, what with his, umm, uhh, superior animalism or something? Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I am the autumn in the scarlet I am the make-up on your eyes" -Kim Deal