Camille Out, Raven in...

Hello everyone, I just noticed in the Duellist that Camille Devereaux has been removed, and Raven added, to the V:tES Gangrel set. Raven has the same stats and cost as Camille. Two questions(..maybe more...) 1. Why was Camille removed/replaced? Was she ugly? Look too much like a relative of Richard? 2. Will it now be cool for me to have both Camille and Raven in my Gangrel deck? It'd be fine to have Raven, Camille, Badger, and Gitane all out at once. Aaaaahhh.... It's too bad Monacle of clarity was removed. Fun card. Later, Dennis Manager The Elysium Games Club ely...@ra.isisnet.com

In article <1995Nov3.1...@ac.dal.ca>, ti...@is.dal.ca (Dennis Jeffery Murphy) writes: > 1. Why was Camille removed/replaced? Was she ugly? Look too much >like a relative of Richard? The artist used a picture of a model from a Victoria's Secret and due to legality (?) they decided to drop the card. > 2. Will it now be cool for me to have both Camille and Raven in >my Gangrel deck? Yes (and I plan on it), unless you play in a "sanctioned" tournament (in which case all your vampire backs must either be Jyhad or all must be V:TES, no mix).

In article <1995Nov3.1...@ac.dal.ca>, ti...@is.dal.ca (Dennis Jeffery Murphy) wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I just noticed in the Duellist that Camille Devereaux has been removed, > and Raven added, to the V:tES Gangrel set. Raven has the same stats and > cost as Camille. > > Two questions(..maybe more...) > > 1. Why was Camille removed/replaced? Was she ugly? Look too much > like a relative of Richard? The most popular rumor is that Victoria's Secret was going to sue (she looked too much like one of their Stephanie Seymour pix). > 2. Will it now be cool for me to have both Camille and Raven in > my Gangrel deck? It'd be fine to have Raven, Camille, Badger, and Gitane > all out at once. > Aaaaahhh.... Yes; I think this was a bad idea, as the Gangrel now have one more vampire than everyone else. > It's too bad Monacle of clarity was removed. Fun card. And I always thought Chaos Orbs were rules monsters... J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

In article <47e8cc$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <1995Nov3.1...@ac.dal.ca>, ti...@is.dal.ca (Dennis >Jeffery Murphy) writes: >> 2. Will it now be cool for me to have both Camille and Raven in >>my Gangrel deck? > >Yes (and I plan on it), unless you play in a "sanctioned" tournament (in >which case all your vampire backs must either be Jyhad or all must be >V:TES, no mix). Actually, our group is in the process of codifying a whole bunch of house rules right now, and one that we all seemed to agree on was that Raven and Camille would contest each other. As much as the people who play Gangrel would like it, it's just not fair to have two five point minions with superior fortitude and protean. And no other clan would have this advantage of an additional nifty minion. And of *course* we plan to allow mixed crypts! =) Judy -- "As you know, I am a Jew, so I am going back to my vault where I control the media." -- Jon Lovitz, 1995 MTV Movie Awards *** jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jcookson ***

In article <47g9rk$3...@latte.eng.umd.edu>, jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) writes: >Actually, our group is in the process of codifying a whole bunch of house >rules right now, and one that we all seemed to agree on was that Raven and >Camille would contest each other. As much as the people who play Gangrel >would like it, it's just not fair to have two five point minions with >superior fortitude and protean. I feel that the Gangrel really got the shaft when it came to minions since they have 3 ten capacity vampires and Basilia and Wynn are practically the same vampire (with the exception of special abilities). I think that it's fine that you want to play that way, I am just biased because of my love for the Gangrel clan. I was hoping DS would have more than just the inner circle for the existing clans. What I would like are more medium level vampires (and even low level). Does anyone know if there will be more vampires for the existing clans besides the members of the inner circle? I always thought that making up your own vampire's disciplines (proxy cards) would be an interesting thing to do. It would make crypt building easier and more efficient (though it can be argued that this would disrupt the game to much, and it probably would- It was just a thought). ~Biomechanoid

In article <47is83$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: > I feel that the Gangrel really got the shaft when it came to minions since > they have 3 ten capacity vampires and Basilia and Wynn are practically the > same vampire (with the exception of special abilities). I think that it's On the other hand, there are a lot of small non-Gangrels that go well. Igo, Navar, Rufina, and Smudge... (yeah, I know he goes in every deck, but the 2 hand damage is more useful to Gangrels than any other clan, and the diablerie is fairly likely)

Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote: >Actually, our group is in the process of codifying a whole bunch of house >rules right now, and one that we all seemed to agree on was that Raven and >Camille would contest each other. As much as the people who play Gangrel >would like it, it's just not fair to have two five point minions with >superior fortitude and protean. And no other clan would have this >advantage of an additional nifty minion. Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire (Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? Very simply: not fair. This is the same reason that Mt$ players get all wild about having "duplicate" cards with different names - they can pack more in a deck. Much easier to build a deck with an extra non-contesting copy of your vampires. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <47m57g$a...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote: >>Actually, our group is in the process of codifying a whole bunch of house >>rules right now, and one that we all seemed to agree on was that Raven and >>Camille would contest each other. As much as the people who play Gangrel >>would like it, it's just not fair to have two five point minions with >>superior fortitude and protean. And no other clan would have this >>advantage of an additional nifty minion. > >Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > ACTUALLY, using both Camille and Raven isn't really that different than pasting a new name on another vampire and claiming that it's now unique. I find that one of the biggest problems I have when designing decks is finding enough suitable vampires. Of the three decks I have, one of them duplicates 2 vamps and triplicates 1 and another deck duplicates 3 and triplicates 2. I don't do this because I love these specific vampires (although it's hard not to love Ozmo), but because my decks have VERY specific themes and it's hard to find vampires that fit the requirements for the deck. Belive me, I would love to have three identical Biancas with different names so I can claim that they are each unique, but the game has unique vampires for a reason (at least I hope the ruls have some reason behind them. Don't they Tom?) and considering Raven and Cammile different vampires because the company is attempting to avoid a law suit just seems to be a stupid way to get around game restrictions. I'm not saying that this has a huge impact on the game, but I am saying that it is detrimental to game balance in it's own small way. Also, someone said that they thought that the Gangrel had been shafted diversity-wize. To this I say, "Look at the Toreador sometime!" The Toreador are simply the least diverse clan, with access to fewer different disciplines than any other clan in the game. They also don't have the benefit of access to such diverse disciplines as animalism and protean. All in all, I'd give the advantage to the Gangrel.

In article <47m57g$a...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) Well, if I have both Camille and Raven, I can put in 2 of each. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) > >If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? >Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire >(Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? > >Very simply: not fair. Peace Tom & Scott, FWIW, I echo Scott's beliefs. This does give the Gangrel a quantifiable advantage. It is simply unfair to allow them a "free" duplicate of one of their best vamps. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <47r0i8$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >>>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >>>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >>>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >>>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) >>If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? >>Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire >>(Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? >>Very simply: not fair. > >Oh, please. Having Camille and Raven is virtually the same thing as Having Camille and Raven in your Crypt is strictly better than having two Camilles or having two Ravens in your Crypt. No other Vampire is granted this favor. That is all. >having Lupo and Koko (2-cap vampires with inferior Potence). In fact, >if you're playing a deck balanced between the clans, Lupo and Koko are >virtually identical, given that neither clan hoser is played all that much. >And there are other examples of more-or-less identical vampires, though >mostly in the lower capacities. And if your deck isn't bothering to use >one of their abilities (say, Animalism), then they're, again, basically >the same thing as having vampires of the same capacity, in the same clan >or otherwise, that only share two disciplines. Make as many what-ifs as you like. The fact remains that you have imparted a certain advantage to Camille - the half-uniqueness. >Vampires are made unique in part for story reasons, and in part for >game balance reasons. Because they're unique, you can't reasonably have >a crypt with 12 copies of the same vampire, though having 2 or 3 copies >of a vampire is generally practical. But this does not mean that it's out >of line to have two very similar vampires, that you can put into a deck >and not particularly care which comes out. Replace "very similar" with "identical but non-contesting" > >>This is the same reason that Mt$ players get all wild about having >>"duplicate" cards with different names - they can pack more in a deck. > >A trivial complaint, at best, unless you are playing with card limits, and >I've never heard of anyone limiting cards in the crypt. Trivial, yes. But it does exist. >>Much easier to build a deck with an extra non-contesting copy of >>your vampires. > >Every release will make it easier for several decks to rotate out some >vampire duplicates for similar, new vampires, and thus avoid contesting >*itself*. But you're forgetting the balancing nature of unique cards: >if having Raven and Camille really is as good as you claim, then more >people will start playing such a deck, and you'll be that much more likely >to contest them with others, or to not bring them out because they would >become contested. Hopefully, every release's added vampires will be balanced and carefully considered. This is obviously not the case for Raven. A better solution would have been to change the artwork and leave the name alone. (And, incidentally, I never claimed that it was all that good) -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <47r0i8$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a > >>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference > >>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire > >>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt > >>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) > >If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? > >Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire > >(Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? > >Very simply: not fair. > > Oh, please. Having Camille and Raven is virtually the same thing as > having Lupo and Koko (2-cap vampires with inferior Potence). Not at all. I play a nearly all Nosferatu deck ("the Slumlords"). I would MUCH rather have another Nosferatu with 2 capacity and Potence than have Lupo. Why? Oftentimes, I have cards in my hand that Lupo cannot play. In many games, I get Lupo out on the first turn (but don't have any other vampires that I can get out) and I can't get out my spawning pool/other master locations out in time to have to contest them, to use them on the next turn, etc. It _does_ make a difference. > In fact, > if you're playing a deck balanced between the clans, Lupo and Koko are > virtually identical, given that neither clan hoser is played all that much. > And there are other examples of more-or-less identical vampires, though > mostly in the lower capacities. Camille/Raven is not a lower vampire. S/He is one of the better gangrel. > And if your deck isn't bothering to use ^^^^ > one of their abilities (say, Animalism), then they're, again, basically > the same thing as having vampires of the same capacity, in the same clan > or otherwise, that only share two disciplines. If... > > Vampires are made unique in part for story reasons, and in part for > game balance reasons. Because they're unique, you can't reasonably have > a crypt with 12 copies of the same vampire, though having 2 or 3 copies > of a vampire is generally practical. But this does not mean that it's out > of line to have two very similar vampires, that you can put into a deck > and not particularly care which comes out. > > >This is the same reason that Mt$ players get all wild about having > >"duplicate" cards with different names - they can pack more in a deck. > > A trivial complaint, at best, unless you are playing with card limits, and > I've never heard of anyone limiting cards in the crypt. > Not quite the same. In Magic, (apologies to non-Magic people) if I could have multiple unique legends in play (two Nebuchanedzer(sp?) or two Marton Stromgald) that is a HUGE advantage. With contesting in Jyhad, that advantage is lessened, but not by much. Ex: If I could have multiples of cards, my disruptive vote deck ("Sowing Dissension's Seeds") would suddenly have as many multiples of Gideon Fontain (Is that the 3 capacity, sup. presence Ventrue?) as it could. The real deck already has 3 in it (out of 14), but now I could get out two of him. Believe me, I would love it. Trivial? Not a major problem, no, but trivial... I, for one, don't think so. > >Much easier to build a deck with an extra non-contesting copy of > >your vampires. > > Every release will make it easier for several decks to rotate out some > vampire duplicates for similar, new vampires, and thus avoid contesting > *itself*. But you're forgetting the balancing nature of unique cards: > if having Raven and Camille really is as good as you claim, then more > people will start playing such a deck, and you'll be that much more likely > to contest them with others, or to not bring them out because they would > become contested. They will be similar, yes. But they will be of different clans/capacity/powers/etc. Each difference means alot. EX: I may throw Duck into a Brujah deck if I need another small potence boy, or I may throw him into a Malk deck for his obfuscate. On the other hand, if he had enough similar abilities with the brujah, his inclusion might change my decision on whether or not to include a few cards of a minor discipline (a weenie malk s&b with few cards with auspex might now throw in a few telepathic counters/whatevers, if the Duck had obfuscate and auspex) if it is on the edge to whether it should or not. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" # $ sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu -<insert name of those quoted here> @ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ GAT/CS/O/WS d-(---) h++ s: a--- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ P+ L E- W+>++ N++(+) o?> K+>++++ w--->? O? M++ V-->? PS+(-+) PE&++&- Y+>++ PGP(--) t 5->? X++&-- R+++&* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ DI D(+)&--- G+>+++ e+*>++++ h(+) r(+) y*+? /* Version 3.1 */ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ Spoutingly yours 8^)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >>>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >>>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >>>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >>>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) >>If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? >>Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire >>(Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? >>Very simply: not fair. > >Oh, please. Having Camille and Raven is virtually the same thing as >having Lupo and Koko (2-cap vampires with inferior Potence). In fact, >if you're playing a deck balanced between the clans, Lupo and Koko are >virtually identical, given that neither clan hoser is played all that much. >And there are other examples of more-or-less identical vampires, though >mostly in the lower capacities. And if your deck isn't bothering to use >one of their abilities (say, Animalism), then they're, again, basically >the same thing as having vampires of the same capacity, in the same clan >or otherwise, that only share two disciplines. Peace Tom, No, Cam + Rav /= Lupo + Koko. Cam & Rav are both Gangrel, both FIVE blood, and both have SUP For + SUP Pro. Lupo & Koko are TWO blood, different clans, and both have inf Pot. Having an extra copy of a vamp with a double superior in clan disciplines makes a significant difference, _especially_ when is is a "cheap" fiver. The point being that Cam Dev is/was one of the best Gangrel already. They don't need a non-contesting clone of Cam Dev. >>This is the same reason that Mt$ players get all wild about having >>"duplicate" cards with different names - they can pack more in a deck. > >A trivial complaint, at best, unless you are playing with card limits, and >I've never heard of anyone limiting cards in the crypt. Uniqueness makes vamps self-limiting. It is not a trival complaint. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <47t29c$f...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > In article <47r0i8$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, > Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > >>>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a > >>>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference > >>>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire > >>>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt > >>>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) > >>If it's no big deal, then why have contesting rules at all? > >>Why should you be allowed to have two copies of one particular vampire > >>(Camille aka Raven) and not of, say, Nik? > >>Very simply: not fair. > > > >Oh, please. Having Camille and Raven is virtually the same thing as > > Having Camille and Raven in your Crypt is strictly better than having > two Camilles or having two Ravens in your Crypt. No other Vampire > is granted this favor. > Bullshit! Koko and Lupo are practically the same. It is true that they have minor differences, but the fact remains that the two are basically identical, as are Camille and Raven. Admittedly, Raven is the first Vampire who is a virtual dupe who is actually useful, but saying that a Vampire can't happen because she is useful is lame. > That is all. > > >having Lupo and Koko (2-cap vampires with inferior Potence). In fact, > >if you're playing a deck balanced between the clans, Lupo and Koko are > >virtually identical, given that neither clan hoser is played all that much. > >And there are other examples of more-or-less identical vampires, though > >mostly in the lower capacities. And if your deck isn't bothering to use > >one of their abilities (say, Animalism), then they're, again, basically > >the same thing as having vampires of the same capacity, in the same clan > >or otherwise, that only share two disciplines. > > Make as many what-ifs as you like. The fact remains that you have imparted > a certain advantage to Camille - the half-uniqueness. > <READ> Lupo and Koko have identical Disciplines. Furthermore, I fail to see as how Roland Lousarian and Gideon Fontain (two 3 point Ventrue with Presence) are terribly different, nor do I see anyone battering down the gates because Duck and Doll Face are the same in Stealth Bleed decks. Brazil and Dieter Kleist are the SAME VAMPIRE, and always have been, but noone complains. Clan hosers are seldomly played, and when they are, they rarely hit the 2 pointers anyway. > >Vampires are made unique in part for story reasons, and in part for > >game balance reasons. Because they're unique, you can't reasonably have > >a crypt with 12 copies of the same vampire, though having 2 or 3 copies > >of a vampire is generally practical. But this does not mean that it's out > >of line to have two very similar vampires, that you can put into a deck > >and not particularly care which comes out. > > Replace "very similar" with "identical but non-contesting" > Who cares? The contesting rules were set up to act as crypt restrictions, to make it impractical (albeit not illegal) to have more than 3 of a single Vampire. Since Raven and Camille will still not be packed together in numbers exceeding 3, game balance hasn't collapsed. Hence, if the story needed altering, then bringing in a Raven makes perfect sense. > > > >>This is the same reason that Mt$ players get all wild about having > >>"duplicate" cards with different names - they can pack more in a deck. > > > >A trivial complaint, at best, unless you are playing with card limits, and > >I've never heard of anyone limiting cards in the crypt. > > Trivial, yes. But it does exist. > > >>Much easier to build a deck with an extra non-contesting copy of > >>your vampires. > > > >Every release will make it easier for several decks to rotate out some > >vampire duplicates for similar, new vampires, and thus avoid contesting > >*itself*. But you're forgetting the balancing nature of unique cards: > >if having Raven and Camille really is as good as you claim, then more > >people will start playing such a deck, and you'll be that much more likely > >to contest them with others, or to not bring them out because they would > >become contested. > > Hopefully, every release's added vampires will be balanced and carefully > considered. This is obviously not the case for Raven. > > A better solution would have been to change the artwork and leave the name > alone. > > (And, incidentally, I never claimed that it was all that good) > -- > ----- > L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine > Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text Ritaxis --

In article <47noh3$c...@pentagon.io.com> jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) writes: >From: jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) >Subject: Re: Camille Out, Raven in... >Date: 7 Nov 1995 07:55:47 -0600 >In article <47m57g$a...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, >Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>Having both Camille and Raven isn't really any different than finding a >>vampire with the right disciplines in a second clan (the main difference >>being in getting out clan-oriented cards), or of doubling up a vampire >>in your crypt (the main difference being if you draw both from your crypt >>and even that won't always make a difference in what you would have done.) >You have effectively hit on the differences between having Camille and Raven >vs. Camille and Camille. Your example of finding a vampire with the right >disciplines in a second clan is not as good, since Raven has exactly the core >Gangrel disciplines, no extraneous ones. Going to another clan always >involves picking up some useless disciplines once you get to the medium- to >high-level vamps. This is right. Try to find any 4, 5, or 6 capacity vampire in one clan that has all 3 skills of any other clan, (Ex: any non-Malk vamp of capacity 4, 5, or 6 that has Ob, Dom, and Aus) let alone superior versions of these skills. My only question is, will expansions add mid-range vampires to the existing clans, or just the Inner Circle ones. If all clans were slated to receive a few new vamps, then adding Raven shouldn't be a problem. >In any event, getting out clan-oriented cards and the added flexibility when >you draw both from your crypt may seem like minor advantages, but they are >still advantages, and there will be some players who can maximize their use, >some players who complain (rightly) that there is an advantage, and net-reps >who claim that there is no problem. Kind of like the card back change, except >this one's already covered in the tournament rules. >Hunter >-- >J. Hunter Johnson >jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online) >"What if your woman leaves you?" "That's what holosuites are for." > -- Dax and Quark discussing relationships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In article <47r0i8$o...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Oh, please. Having Camille and Raven is virtually the same thing as >having Lupo and Koko (2-cap vampires with inferior Potence). Find me any mid-range (capacity 4, 5, or 6) vamp that has all 3 skills of a clan to which he/she doesn't belong, let alone have superior in 2 of the skills. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In article <DHwyL...@cruzio.com> rit...@cruzio.com writes: >From: rit...@cruzio.com >Subject: Re: Camille Out, Raven in... >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 04:46:27 GMT >[chop...chop...chop] > <READ> Lupo and Koko have identical Disciplines. Furthermore, I fail >to see as how Roland Lousarian and Gideon Fontain (two 3 point Ventrue with >Presence) are terribly different, nor do I see anyone battering down the gates >because Duck and Doll Face are the same in Stealth Bleed decks. > Brazil and Dieter Kleist are the SAME VAMPIRE, and always have been, >but noone complains. Clan hosers are seldomly played, and when they are, they >rarely hit the 2 pointers anyway. Whoa, cool! I'll put Malkavian Madness Network in my Toreador deck! Seriously, though, Lupo, Koko, Brazil, and Dieter are 2 capacity peepee shooters. You get 'em out early to snatch the edge quick or block your predator from doing that, and later in the game they are good for a block or two on their way to torpor. Once the game gets doing, the plays are made by older, more skilled vamps, such as Camille/Raven, who have more skills and superior skills. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In article <DHwyL...@cruzio.com>, <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote: >In article <47t29c$f...@crl.crl.com>, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > Bullshit! Koko and Lupo are practically the same. It is true that they >have minor differences, but the fact remains that the two are basically >identical, as are Camille and Raven. Admittedly, Raven is the first Vampire Koko and Lupo are different clans. If you consider that merely a minor difference, I hope that you will eventually learn that it is more than that. It's not always a game-breaker, but it is significant. > <READ> Lupo and Koko have identical Disciplines. Furthermore, I fail >to see as how Roland Lousarian and Gideon Fontain (two 3 point Ventrue with >Presence) are terribly different, nor do I see anyone battering down the gates >because Duck and Doll Face are the same in Stealth Bleed decks. Of course you don't. Because people realize that in order to gain identical disciplines, you must sacrifice clan unity in the deck. All of the examples you have cited above have clan differences. There is a tradeoff, and so nobody need complain. Camille and Raven have NO tradeoff, thus there is a complaint (especially given the fact that they are one of the best cost/benefit of the gangrels). > Brazil and Dieter Kleist are the SAME VAMPIRE, and always have been, >but noone complains. Clan hosers are seldomly played, and when they are, they >rarely hit the 2 pointers anyway. See above. And mebbe you should take a look at clan hosers more often. They're certainly played a lot when I play. They're really useful. And I'll hit whomever is the best target of opportunity. You'd be surprised how often it's a 2 pointer. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | http://hci.ise.vt.edu/~jsciv/ +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

Dave Andrews <s2...@nmu.edu> wrote: >My only question is, will expansions add mid-range vampires to the existing >clans, or just the Inner Circle ones. If all clans were slated to receive a >few new vamps, then adding Raven shouldn't be a problem. At least for the near future, expansions will have a range of vampires for each clan, not just for the new clans. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >No, Cam + Rav /= Lupo + Koko. Cam & Rav are both Gangrel, both FIVE blood, >and both have SUP For + SUP Pro. Lupo & Koko are TWO blood, different clans, >and both have inf Pot. Same principle, different stats. Having vampires of same capacity and same disciplines just isn't that big of a deal. And if it is a real benefit, it's a self-limiting benefit, just as with any unique card: if the cards are that good, it's that much more likely that you'll be contesting the cards, or not playing them in the first place to avoid contention. If a 2-capacity vampire is going to be useful for your deck, then having two of them will be more useful. If a 5-capacity vampire is going to be useful for your deck, then having two of them will be more useful. The only difference is that the 5-capacity vampire is going to fit into more deck concepts, but again, this is a self-limiting advantage. [ quoted text not captured ]

carquest automotive (carq...@cencom.net) writes: > If your group allows you to use in your crypt a mix of jyhad and vtes > vampire cards. I think the least of your problems is worrying that > someone has " 2 effective the same vampires ". The tournment rules are > crystal clear on the crypt being made up of only one series or the other. > This should not only be a tournment rule but one that applies to every > game. The crypt being of at least 12 cards I could easily think of many > nasty ways to effectively mark my crypt vampires. The draw deck on the > other hand given the tournment rules limits would be more difficult to > mark. An interesting thought but keep in mind that Jhyad and v:tes cards are what is known as "one way" cards. This means that it has two distinct orientations; "Jhyad" on the right with "deckmaster" on the left and vice versa. V:tes is similar. This means by careful card selection and orientation it is possible to indicate four different states for any card in a mixed deck: say Jhyad right for politicals, J left for masters, V:tes right for combat, V left for equipment. If you find this "nitpicky" ask your self why Casinos in Vegas use cards with symmetrical backs. Knowledge is power. -- Think On! Clan Mac Clellan <-:(--- Pat Gilliland.

carquest automotive <carq...@cencom.net> wrote: > > If your group allows you to use in your crypt a mix of jyhad and vtes >vampire cards. I think the least of your problems is worrying that >someone has " 2 effective the same vampires ". The tournment rules are >crystal clear on the crypt being made up of only one series or the other. >This should not only be a tournment rule but one that applies to every >game. The crypt being of at least 12 cards I could easily think of many >nasty ways to effectively mark my crypt vampires. The draw deck on the >other hand given the tournment rules limits would be more difficult to >mark. Peace be with you, Just remember, according to Tom/WotC, "card backs don't matter", so it shouldn't make a difference whether your crypt has both Jyhad & VtES backs. Gee, I guess I was right, originally . . . . FWIW, I hate it that the silly tourney rules may become the defacto Jyhad deck construction rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <48b2p8$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >At least for the near future, expansions will have a range of vampires for >each clan, not just for the new clans. This was exactly what I was hoping for :-) Will DS have more than just the inner circle for the original clans? How bout a new Caitiff? (Unless they have an Inner Circle member as well) :-) There are quite a few discipline combos that don't exist, including a 2 capacity vampire with protean (while there are multiples in with other disciples). I hope that there will be more vampires in the expansions, maybe that will lessen the whining about Raven (who I can't wait to see and play with) :-) Biomechanoid

In article <48b2j3$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: > >No, Cam + Rav /= Lupo + Koko. Cam & Rav are both Gangrel, both FIVE blood, > >and both have SUP For + SUP Pro. Lupo & Koko are TWO blood, different clans, > >and both have inf Pot. > > Same principle, different stats. Having vampires of same capacity and same > disciplines just isn't that big of a deal. And if it is a real benefit, it's > a self-limiting benefit, just as with any unique card: if the cards are that > good, it's that much more likely that you'll be contesting the cards, or not > playing them in the first place to avoid contention. Under that logic this card should be fine to put into V:tE$ - Rise of the Antedeluvian: Unique Master (3 pool) During your untap spend one pool. Your prey must choose one minion that they control. That minion is burned. This is not considered diablerie. "The time of Gehenna approaches, when the Antedeluvians will rise from their hiding places to devour the young" (or something :) After all, a card that good is self-limiting. People will put it into their deck. > > If a 2-capacity vampire is going to be useful for your deck, then having two > of them will be more useful. If a 5-capacity vampire is going to be useful > for your deck, then having two of them will be more useful. The only > difference is that the 5-capacity vampire is going to fit into more deck > concepts, but again, this is a self-limiting advantage. > See my earlier thread on the unique capabilities of each vampire. Clan and disciplines are VERY important (Gideon Fontaine superior to Roland Loussarian if a deck does not use Fortitude, KoKo superior to Lupo if a deck uses a number of Nossie locations, Brazil and Deiter Kleist: who can get you a Muddled Vampire Hunter on the second turn? who can get you a Thadius Zho? And on...and on...) Notice that each of these examples, that there is no "self-limiting" because of deck concepts here. Someone might contest my Gideon Fontaine because they are playing a Ventrue deck, not because of the inherent superiority of Gideon Fontaine to MY deck. In their deck, maybe Roland Loussarian is better. With Camille/Raven, there is NO comparison. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <48e2i7$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: > In article <48b2p8$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R > Wylie) writes: > > >At least for the near future, expansions will have a range of vampires > for > >each clan, not just for the new clans. > Hopefully we will not have more of this Camille/Raven nonsense. I do look forward to new cards, but not more of the Magic :"Gee, let's make a new card that's EXACTLY the same as Order of Leitbur!!" (Apologies to nonMagicians). > This was exactly what I was hoping for :-) > Will DS have more than just the inner circle for the original clans? > How bout a new Caitiff? (Unless they have an Inner Circle member as well) > :-) Is the smiley a joke or a happy hoping look? :) Caitiff are reviled by the Camarilla. No chance for an Inner Circle member. [ quoted text not captured ]

My point is not that one must use tourney rules or any rules for deck construction. But if you have problems with your games "gangrel" player having effectively 2 of the same vampires out and not the fact that they are not contested cards. ( Btw: I don't ) I think you would have more concern over my crypt of 1-4 cost vampires being from the Vtes set and the rest being from the jyhad series. Would it not be a greater advantage to decide whether I want to burn those transfer points to move a vampire from my crypt into my uncontrolled region that I know I can get out on the next transfer phase or spend those transfers on the 10 vampire I already got in my uncontrolled region. Certainly it is possiable to stack a a jyhad / vtes draw deck. However I wouldn't be as effective. Ie: if you are using both series. 40-60% must be from the jyhad series. Which means 40-60% must be from the new series. So in an 80 card deck the fewest amount of one series of cards you can have is 20. Ok so I make all my combat cards from one series, or all my master cards, bleed or stealth. It really would be wrong to say that it really wouldn't make a difference. Just really not all that effective in the long run. This is what is troubling. Given the tournment rules for the crypt being from one series. ( that meaning the jyhad backed or the vtes backed) With the expansion card set due to come out. In order to use the new expansion vampires in a tournment deck I will have to have all vtes vampires. Which means I have to either buy more cards ( I guess Wizards wasn't happy with the 4,000+ jyhad cards I bought ) or trade for cards I normally wouldn't have to. Hey Wotc? Want a marketing tip. Offer vtes replacements for jyhad cards. Sure it would cost ya a little money. But would it really. The free press and good vibes towards existing players should more than make up for the cost. Heck be cheap about it. Cards for replacement must be recieved by a -/-/95. Give people 30 or so days to send them to ya. Ah well I will quit dreaming.

[ quoted text not captured ] What you seem to be missing, is that Raven is merely a GOOD Vampire, for MOST decks that have a strong Gangrel contingent. For many Gangrel decks, Bearclaw is superior, and there are few decks that have Gangrel, and wouldn't rather have Bearclaw, that would WANT 2 Ravens. Raven is just a nice Vampire for some decks, and if this is a noticable slight advantage for decks, then these decks will go down thru contesting. Similarly, Weenie Politics is sickly powerful, but if there are 2 such decks at a table, they cancel out, and if there are 3 then they all go down. Contesting is a MINOR faset of this game, and rarely comes up more than once a game. So, to have a fairly nice Vampire for some decks, be partially imune to contesting is not going to change a thing. The fact that decks who pack Camille will usually pack Raven as well, means that Camille or Raven will be contested nowe just exactly as much as Camille used to be, which is to say that I have never seen this happen. > > > > If a 2-capacity vampire is going to be useful for your deck, then > having two > > of them will be more useful. If a 5-capacity vampire is going to be useful > > for your deck, then having two of them will be more useful. The only > > difference is that the 5-capacity vampire is going to fit into more deck > > concepts, but again, this is a self-limiting advantage. > > > > See my earlier thread on the unique capabilities of each vampire. Clan > and disciplines are VERY important (Gideon Fontaine superior to Roland > Loussarian if a deck does not use Fortitude, KoKo superior to Lupo if a > deck uses a number of Nossie locations, Brazil and Deiter Kleist: who can > get you a Muddled Vampire Hunter on the second turn? who can get you a > Thadius Zho? And on...and on...) Actually, neither can get you a Thadius Zho. Howevr, I must point out that few decks care over much about clan, just as few decks care about Cammille. Cammille's clan loyalty is unimportant, ho often have you seen Gangrel deevolution played? How frequently have you seen Cammille play Gypsies? The answer to both questions is never. I play Gangrel Bleed, and I have never made Gypsies with Camille, because that is what the smaller Gangrel are for. > Notice that each of these examples, that there is no "self-limiting" > because of deck concepts here. There sure is. If you make such and such a deck, and cream people with it, people will copy it. If your Muddled Vampire Hunter is kicking too much ass (like, you are giving him a stake, and lucky blow with first strike?), then people will pack weeny Malkavians (slipping Brazil into Toreador decks, or Normal into Nosferatu decks) so that they can pack their own MVH, and they will contest with you. How is this less self limiting or more slef limiting than the supposed (yet still unproven) adavantage of Raven? > Someone might contest my Gideon Fontaine > because they are playing a Ventrue deck, not because of the inherent > superiority of Gideon Fontaine to MY deck. In their deck, maybe Roland > Loussarian is better. With Camille/Raven, there is NO comparison. > That's true. They are identical, and if someone is playing Gangrel, and you are playing Gangrel, then they might contest either one. If, as you say, Raven is a big adavntage, then more people will play Gangrel, and more people who already played Gangrel will start switching over to packing Raven and Camille. And you will start contesting. Since the supposed advantage of this switch is that you are NOT contesting, and it's going to lead to contesting if it is really an advantage, I fail to see your point. > "I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial Ritaxis --

rit...@cruzio.com wrote: >In article The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> In artic...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> > James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >> After all, a card that good is self-limiting. People will put it into >> their deck. > > What you seem to be missing, is that Raven is merely a GOOD Vampire, >for MOST decks that have a strong Gangrel contingent. For many Gangrel decks, >Bearclaw is superior, and there are few decks that have Gangrel, and wouldn't >rather have Bearclaw, that would WANT 2 Ravens. Raven is just a nice Vampire >for some decks, and if this is a noticable slight advantage for decks, then >these decks will go down thru contesting. Peace Ritaxis, Most of the Gangrel decks I have seen were stronger in Protean than Animalism, which makes CD/R a better buy than BP. > Similarly, Weenie Politics is sickly powerful, but if there are 2 such >decks at a table, they cancel out, and if there are 3 then they all go down. >Contesting is a MINOR faset of this game, and rarely comes up more than once a >game. So, to have a fairly nice Vampire for some decks, be partially imune to >contesting is not going to change a thing. Why are you contradicting yourself? Above you state that, "these decks will go down thru contesting.", but here you say that,"contesting is a MINOR (your emphasis) facet (sp) of the game." Which is it? CD/R aren't "fairly nice," she is extremely good (double superior for only five). > The fact that decks who pack Camille will usually pack Raven as well, >means that Camille or Raven will be contested nowe just exactly as much as >Camille used to be, which is to say that I have never seen this happen. No, they will be half as likely to contest (there are two of them). If what you say about contesting being so terribly minor is true, then why have the rule at all? Why not a whole deck of Anvils? ["Polka-dot." "Not again!"] >> See my earlier thread on the unique capabilities of each vampire. Clan >> and disciplines are VERY important (Gideon Fontaine superior to Roland >> Loussarian if a deck does not use Fortitude, KoKo superior to Lupo if a >> deck uses a number of Nossie locations, Brazil and Deiter Kleist: who can >> get you a Muddled Vampire Hunter on the second turn? who can get you a >> Thadius Zho? And on...and on...) > > Actually, neither can get you a Thadius Zho. Howevr, I must point out >that few decks care over much about clan, just as few decks care about >Cammille. Cammille's clan loyalty is unimportant, ho often have you seen >Gangrel deevolution played? How frequently have you seen Cammille play >Gypsies? The answer to both questions is never. I play Gangrel Bleed, and I >have never made Gypsies with Camille, because that is what the smaller Gangrel >are for. Well, I have about ten decks and eight of them are clan specific, so I'm going to disagree strongly with you that clan is unimportant. I have seen quite a few GDs (one of our players love Gangrel). In my Gangrel deck, I have diablerized four different vampires with CD and mustered a Garou (could have just as easily have been Gypsies), so again I disagree. Yes, it is nice if your 2s & 3s are available to perform the "menial" tasks, but sometimes, you don't draw them. >> Notice that each of these examples, that there is no "self-limiting" >> because of deck concepts here. > > There sure is. If you make such and such a deck, and cream people with >it, people will copy it. If your Muddled Vampire Hunter is kicking too much >ass (like, you are giving him a stake, and lucky blow with first strike?), >then people will pack weeny Malkavians (slipping Brazil into Toreador decks, >or Normal into Nosferatu decks) so that they can pack their own MVH, and they >will contest with you. How is this less self limiting or more slef limiting >than the supposed (yet still unproven) adavantage of Raven? This is a silly example. Who is going to put one off clan vamp into their deck hoping to both get that off clan vamp (~4:12) and draw the one clan specific card that goes with it? If this is how you feel that contesting is supposed to work, no wonder you believe that it is so unlikely. >contesting if it is really an advantage, I fail to see your point. I completely agree with you on that last part. [ quoted text not captured ]

carquest automotive <carq...@cencom.net> wrote: [big spiel explaining that card backs ARE a problem omitted] Peace be with you, I tried telling WotC this when they announce the change, but they wouldn't listen. The simple fact is that different card backs do cause problems. > This is what is troubling. Given the tournment rules for the crypt being > from one series. ( that meaning the jyhad backed or the vtes backed) > With the expansion card set due to come out. In order to use the new > expansion vampires in a tournment deck I will have to have all vtes > vampires. Which means I have to either buy more cards ( I guess Wizards > wasn't happy with the 4,000+ jyhad cards I bought ) or trade for cards I > normally wouldn't have to. Hey Wotc? Want a marketing tip. Offer vtes > replacements for jyhad cards. Sure it would cost ya a little money. But > would it really. The free press and good vibes towards existing players > should more than make up for the cost. Heck be cheap about it. Cards for > replacement must be recieved by a -/-/95. Give people 30 or so days to > send them to ya. Ah well I will quit dreaming. I also saw this problem coming and suggested a trade-in several month ago. Unfortunately, Jyhad players are significantly less important than Magic players to WotC, given that there have been TWO trade-ins for Magic and there won't be one for Jyhad. Glad to see that yet another person agrees with me. Too bad WotC doesn't . . . [ quoted text not captured ]

Biomech8 (biom...@aol.com) wrote: : Will DS have more than just the inner circle for the original clans? : How bout a new Caitiff? (Unless they have an Inner Circle member as well) : :-) Rumor has it that there _will_ be an Inner Circle caitiff in DS. Stats ----- Capacity of 2, one superior discipline and half a vote. Drawback: any vampire can take a (D) action to diablerize him, whether or not he's in torpor. if a bloodhunt is called after this diablerie action, there are automatically X votes cast for not burning the diablerizing vampire, where X is the current numbers of players. :-) :-) :-) <-- smileys for the humour impaired... Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

In article <DI747...@cruzio.com>, rit...@cruzio.com wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.951116125348.846B-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > > Clan > > and disciplines are VERY important (Gideon Fontaine superior to Roland > > Loussarian if a deck does not use Fortitude, KoKo superior to Lupo if a > > deck uses a number of Nossie locations, Brazil and Deiter Kleist: who can > > get you a Muddled Vampire Hunter on the second turn? who can get you a > > Thadius Zho? And on...and on...) > > Actually, neither can get you a Thadius Zho. True. I was working from memory (thought Kleist was Tremere). > Howevr, I must point out > that few decks care over much about clan, just as few decks care about > Cammille. Cammille's clan loyalty is unimportant, ho often have you seen > Gangrel deevolution played? How frequently have you seen Cammille play > Gypsies? The answer to both questions is never. I play Gangrel Bleed, and I > have never made Gypsies with Camille, because that is what the smaller Gangrel > are for. > When I am worried about being blocked, I send in the big dogs. Camille is definately a big dog. > > Notice that each of these examples, that there is no "self-limiting" > > because of deck concepts here. > > There sure is. If you make such and such a deck, and cream people with > it, people will copy it. If your Muddled Vampire Hunter is kicking too much > ass (like, you are giving him a stake, and lucky blow with first strike?), > then people will pack weeny Malkavians (slipping Brazil into Toreador decks, > or Normal into Nosferatu decks) so that they can pack their own MVH, and they > will contest with you. How is this less self limiting or more slef limiting > than the supposed (yet still unproven) adavantage of Raven? That makes LITTLE sense. Putting in MVH to any arbitrary deck is a waste of good card space. With only one Malk in the crypt, the chances of a vamp being able to get out MVH is small. If you increase the number of (weenie) Malks in your crypt, you move away from your clan/discipline unity. With the Nossies above, less chance in getting up the locations early, etc... as I previously argued. > > > Someone might contest my Gideon Fontaine > > because they are playing a Ventrue deck, not because of the inherent > > superiority of Gideon Fontaine to MY deck. In their deck, maybe Roland > > Loussarian is better. With Camille/Raven, there is NO comparison. > > > > That's true. They are identical, and if someone is playing Gangrel, > and you are playing Gangrel, then they might contest either one. If, as you > say, Raven is a big adavntage, then more people will play Gangrel, and more ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > people who already played Gangrel will start switching over to packing Raven > and Camille. And you will start contesting. Since the supposed advantage of > this switch is that you are NOT contesting, and it's going to lead to > contesting if it is really an advantage, I fail to see your point. It is a minor advantage, but an advantage nonetheless. Many Examples (crypt of 12): EX1: The first game of the day, Alex pulls out his Gangrel deck. No one else happens to be playing Gangrel. His deck is packed with 2 Camille and 2 Raven. He is likely to get one of the four in his opening uncontrolled hand (~86% chance). Should the two cards contest each other, he has a ~11% chance of getting a Raven/Camille without "duplication" in his opening. If they do not contest, this more than doubles to over ~24%. Thus, he is more than twice as likely to recieve a Raven/Camille and 3 other vampires. EX2: The second game of the day, Beth joins Alex with Gangrel decks. She also has 2 Raven and 2 Camille in her crupt. With contesting, there is now a ~5% chance that they will both have at least one Raven/Camile in their opening. Without contesting, this becomes ~3% chance that they will both have Raven or both have Camille. Basicly, they are LESS likely to contest, even if there is more of an advantage, because you and I might both have Camille and Raven in our crypt, but you might get out Camille, I might get out Raven. This is assuming we are playing cross-style decks that might get into contesting to begin with. ADVANTAGES: Maintaining deck focus (no extraneous disciplines, other clans) Ability to double a good card. BALANCES: Others will play it more if it is so good. (Still less chance of (none, contesting. Someone could play with the same crypt, and it really) wouldn't happen as often. If everyone at the table moves over to playing Gangrel decks because they are so good, Camille/Raven aren't any more likely to be knocked down then any other vamp) I know, this is not a gamebreaker. It is, however, an unfair advantage, giving you roughly half the risk of contesting a great vampire. It is not a "big advantage", but those little advantages add up. In Jyhad, they make the game. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the internet"-aol commercial [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Peace be with you, > > Just remember, according to Tom/WotC, "card backs don't matter", so it > shouldn't make a difference whether your crypt has both Jyhad & VtES > backs. Gee, I guess I was right, originally . . . . > > FWIW, I hate it that the silly tourney rules may become the defacto Jyhad > deck construction rules. > > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > > <insert disclaimer here> That is only if you choose to play by the new rules. The group that I play with will look at both sets of rules and eliminate the ones that are stupid or just don't make any sense at all. Bunny

In article <s291.110...@nmu.edu>, s2...@nmu.edu (Dave Andrews) wrote: > In article <48b2p8$1...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >Dave Andrews <s2...@nmu.edu> wrote: > >>My only question is, will expansions add mid-range vampires to the existing > >>clans, or just the Inner Circle ones. If all clans were slated to receive a > >>few new vamps, then adding Raven shouldn't be a problem. > > >At least for the near future, expansions will have a range of vampires for > >each clan, not just for the new clans. > > That's good news! With more vamps, the Camille/Raven advantage will exist > somewhat for every clan, thus making it not really an advantage! That _is_ good news! :) I would be happy if each clan had this ability. As it stands, see my earlier posts on this thread. Disagreement (with reasoning, not rhethoric) is always welcomed! [ quoted text not captured ]

rit...@cruzio.com wrote: >In article "James R. McClure Jr." writes: >> rit...@cruzio.com wrote: >> >In article The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >> >> In artic...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >> >> > James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >> Why are you contradicting yourself? Above you state that, "these decks will go >> down thru contesting.", but here you say that,"contesting is a MINOR (your >> emphasis) facet (sp) of the game." Which is it? > > In short, it rarely comes up. If, however, something is enough of an >unfair advantage, then people will play that more often and it will all >collapse thru contesting. Yes it is minor, but again, if these decks are the >monstrous winning machines that you are making them out to be then everyone >will play them and they will contest. If they aren't, then why do you care? Peace Ritaxis, I never said that CD/R created "monstrous winning machines." I said that having a second, "low" cost, double superior vampire was an unfair advantage. I care because game balance is extremely important in TCGs (this is why so many of them play so poorly). >> CD/R aren't "fairly nice," she is extremely good (double superior for only five). > > Actually, she is totally average. She has a total of 5 discipline >points, and costs 5. Anvil os extremely good, because he has extra >disciplines, CD/R is just what you expect for a 5 point Gangrel. Yes, you aren't getting any "free" disciplines, but having a "cheap" double superior is a demonstrable advantage. >> > The fact that decks who pack Camille will usually pack Raven as well, >> >means that Camille or Raven will be contested nowe just exactly as much as >> >Camille used to be, which is to say that I have never seen this happen. >> >> No, they will be half as likely to contest (there are two of them). If >> what you say about contesting being so terribly minor is true, then why have >> the rule at all? Why not a whole deck of Anvils? ["Polka-dot." "Not again!"] > > No, Raven will contest as much as Camile used to, and so will Camille. >Actually, you will see Camille get contested twice as much. But since you are >weak on your probability, I won't get into that. Ok, explain to me how CD/R are _twice_ as likely to contest vs. Bear Paw (for example). >> This is a silly example. Who is going to put one off clan vamp into their >> deck hoping to both get that off clan vamp (~4:12) and draw the one clan >> specific card that goes with it? If this is how you feel that contesting is >> supposed to work, no wonder you believe that it is so unlikely. > > My point is simply that if you put a couple of Malkavians into your >otherwise non-Malkavian deck, you can get out the Asylum Hunting Ground, >Malkavian Justicar, and MVH out with fair regularity. In short, if you have a >trick which is kicking bloody ass, people will stick it into otherwise totally >different decks. Everything is self limiting to exactly the same degree. No, they won't. I can't afford to just throw a couple Malks, AHG, MJ, MVH, etc. into my Brujah combat deck (for example). Doing something like that dilutes your deck (especially if the "toss-ins" don't overlap with the disciplines you are already using). I can't afford to take advantage of CD/R in my Dominate deck. I'll play a tight, centered deck vs. the suggested, diluted mish-mash any day. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <48iu7k$1...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > rit...@cruzio.com wrote: > >In article The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >> In artic...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >> > James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: > >> After all, a card that good is self-limiting. People will put it into > >> their deck. > > > > What you seem to be missing, is that Raven is merely a GOOD Vampire, > >for MOST decks that have a strong Gangrel contingent. For many Gangrel decks, > >Bearclaw is superior, and there are few decks that have Gangrel, and wouldn't > >rather have Bearclaw, that would WANT 2 Ravens. Raven is just a nice Vampire > >for some decks, and if this is a noticable slight advantage for decks, then > >these decks will go down thru contesting. > > Peace Ritaxis, > > Most of the Gangrel decks I have seen were stronger in Protean than Animalism, > which makes CD/R a better buy than BP. > > > Similarly, Weenie Politics is sickly powerful, but if there are 2 such > >decks at a table, they cancel out, and if there are 3 then they all go down. > >Contesting is a MINOR faset of this game, and rarely comes up more than once a > >game. So, to have a fairly nice Vampire for some decks, be partially imune to > >contesting is not going to change a thing. > > Why are you contradicting yourself? Above you state that, "these decks will go > down thru contesting.", but here you say that,"contesting is a MINOR (your > emphasis) facet (sp) of the game." Which is it? In short, it rarely comes up. If, however, something is enough of an unfair advantage, then people will play that more often and it will all collapse thru contesting. Yes it is minor, but again, if these decks are the monstrous winning machines that you are making them out to be then everyone will play them and they will contest. If they aren't, then why do you care? > > CD/R aren't "fairly nice," she is extremely good (double superior for only five). > Actually, she is totally average. She has a total of 5 discipline points, and costs 5. Anvil os extremely good, because he has extra disciplines, CD/R is just what you expect for a 5 point Gangrel. For those who don't know: you get a number of disciplines equal to your capacity. -1 Discipline if you cost less than 5. +1 Discipline if you cost more than 8. So, a case could be made that vampires with capacity 5, who are on a breakpoint are all good, but an equal case could be made that vampires of capacity 8 who are just below a breakpoint, suck. Tkae your pick. > > The fact that decks who pack Camille will usually pack Raven as well, > >means that Camille or Raven will be contested nowe just exactly as much as > >Camille used to be, which is to say that I have never seen this happen. > > No, they will be half as likely to contest (there are two of them). If > what you say about contesting being so terribly minor is true, then why have > the rule at all? Why not a whole deck of Anvils? ["Polka-dot." "Not again!"] > No, Raven will contest as much as Camile used to, and so will Camille. Actually, you will see Camille get contested twice as much. But since you are weak on your probability, I won't get into that. > >> See my earlier thread on the unique capabilities of each vampire. Clan > >> and disciplines are VERY important (Gideon Fontaine superior to Roland > >> Loussarian if a deck does not use Fortitude, KoKo superior to Lupo if a > >> deck uses a number of Nossie locations, Brazil and Deiter Kleist: who can > >> get you a Muddled Vampire Hunter on the second turn? who can get you a > >> Thadius Zho? And on...and on...) > > > > Actually, neither can get you a Thadius Zho. Howevr, I must point out > >that few decks care over much about clan, just as few decks care about > >Cammille. Cammille's clan loyalty is unimportant, ho often have you seen > >Gangrel deevolution played? How frequently have you seen Cammille play > >Gypsies? The answer to both questions is never. I play Gangrel Bleed, and I > >have never made Gypsies with Camille, because that is what the smaller Gangrel > >are for. > > Well, I have about ten decks and eight of them are clan specific, so I'm > going to disagree strongly with you that clan is unimportant. I have seen > quite a few GDs (one of our players love Gangrel). In my Gangrel deck, I have > diablerized four different vampires with CD and mustered a Garou (could have > just as easily have been Gypsies), so again I disagree. Yes, it is nice > if your 2s & 3s are available to perform the "menial" tasks, but sometimes, > you don't draw them. > Then you don't pack enough of them. > >> Notice that each of these examples, that there is no "self-limiting" > >> because of deck concepts here. > > > > There sure is. If you make such and such a deck, and cream people with > >it, people will copy it. If your Muddled Vampire Hunter is kicking too much > >ass (like, you are giving him a stake, and lucky blow with first strike?), > >then people will pack weeny Malkavians (slipping Brazil into Toreador decks, > >or Normal into Nosferatu decks) so that they can pack their own MVH, and they > >will contest with you. How is this less self limiting or more slef limiting > >than the supposed (yet still unproven) adavantage of Raven? > > This is a silly example. Who is going to put one off clan vamp into their > deck hoping to both get that off clan vamp (~4:12) and draw the one clan > specific card that goes with it? If this is how you feel that contesting is > supposed to work, no wonder you believe that it is so unlikely. My point is simply that if you put a couple of Malkavians into your otherwise non-Malkavian deck, you can get out the Asylum Hunting Ground, Malkavian Justicar, and MVH out with fair regularity. In short, if you have a trick which is kicking bloody ass, people will stick it into otherwise totally different decks. Everything is self limiting to exactly the same degree. > > >contesting if it is really an advantage, I fail to see your point. > > I completely agree with you on that last part. > > > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle > > <insert disclaimer here> > > Ritaxis --

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >I never said that CD/R created "monstrous winning machines." I said that >having a second, "low" cost, double superior vampire was an unfair advantage. >I care because game balance is extremely important in TCGs (this is why so >many of them play so poorly). Any advantage CD/R gives you is almost meaningless. If every single Gangrel was duplicated, and none of the other clans were, then that would be an unfair advantage, yes. The disad that any given person would be more likely to play Gangrel wouldn't be able to keep up with the advantage for having to worry about uniqueness that much less. But one vampire does not push a clan over this limit. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ah, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The question as I read it was whether we'd be putting in new, mid-range vampires for the existing clans, not whether we'd be putting in duplicate mid-range vampires for the existing clans. While duplicate vampires in the expansions are possible (Dark Sovereigns have a pair of Brujah that are identical except for their special ability), as far as I know we don't have plans to systematically include mid-range duplicates in each clan. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> Same principle, different stats. Having vampires of same capacity and same >> disciplines just isn't that big of a deal. And if it is a real benefit, it's >> a self-limiting benefit, just as with any unique card: if the cards are that >> good, it's that much more likely that you'll be contesting the cards, or not >> playing them in the first place to avoid contention. >Under that logic this card should be fine to put into V:tE$ - > Rise of the Antedeluvian: Unique Master (3 pool) > During your untap spend one pool. Your prey must choose one > minion that they control. That minion is burned. This is > not considered diablerie. > >After all, a card that good is self-limiting. People will put it into >their deck. Democritus with a 6 capacity would be too good. Playing a hunting ground for free would be too good. Thadius Zho at a cost of 2 would be too good. Obvious, "self-limiting" does not mean "it is impossible to imbalance this card." But it *is* a balancing factor: you can't plunk down as many copies as you want, and you have to worry about other people playing the same card. Yes, Raven/Camille lets you work around the first part of the balancing factor, but they also make the second part more relevant. Yes, having both is better than having just one, but having both does not imbalance the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >[big spiel explaining that card backs ARE a problem omitted] >Peace be with you, >I tried telling WotC this when they announce the change, but they wouldn't >listen. The simple fact is that different card backs do cause problems. Obviously the card back change was going to cause *some* problems. The point was that the existing name (and therefore cardbacks) were causing problems that were at least as bad, or at least, problems that we considered to be worse. People are taking the mixed card backs way too seriously. >Unfortunately, Jyhad players are significantly less important than Magic >players to WotC, given that there have been TWO trade-ins for Magic and >there won't be one for Jyhad. Glad to see that yet another person agrees >with me. Too bad WotC doesn't . . . The Antiquities and Legends tradeins happened because of fuckups in the collation, either on our side or on Carte Mundi's. This is a completely different animal than a deliberate change to a product in order to improve it, and to fix crippling problems in certain international markets. There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* like the game, and its players. Any kind of card back exchange would kill the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money spent executing the program. While non-Magic products have been riding on the tidal wave of Magic profits for a while, this cannot continue, and VTES wouldn't recover in time to be a vialbe product. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>[big spiel explaining that card backs ARE a problem omitted] >>Peace be with you, >>I tried telling WotC this when they announce the change, but they wouldn't >>listen. The simple fact is that different card backs do cause problems. > >Obviously the card back change was going to cause *some* problems. The point >was that the existing name (and therefore cardbacks) were causing problems >that were at least as bad, or at least, problems that we considered >to be worse. People are taking the mixed card backs way too seriously. Peace Tom, Not too long ago, you said that card backs weren't a problem. What changed your mind? I have corresponded with gamers in Europe and the Middle East (Israel, specifically) and none of them felt that "Jyhad" being on the back of cards would affect whether gamers purchased the game or not (gamers being a more offense-resistant sort of human and all). I understand that you/WotC considered the change necessary, even when the gaming community told you otherwise. I believe that it (changing backs) was a poor decision. I'm taking the card back change 'seriously' because it prohibits me from buying any of the Jyhad expansions that I've been waiting over a year for. >>Unfortunately, Jyhad players are significantly less important than Magic >>players to WotC, given that there have been TWO trade-ins for Magic and >>there won't be one for Jyhad. Glad to see that yet another person agrees >>with me. Too bad WotC doesn't . . . > >The Antiquities and Legends tradeins happened because of fuckups in the >collation, either on our side or on Carte Mundi's. This is a completely >different animal than a deliberate change to a product in order to improve it, >and to fix crippling problems in certain international markets. Tom, can we agree that the AQ & LE tradeins were done to "satisfy" the customers? As someone who bought both AQ & LE in significant quantity (as a player), I can attest that it was very annoying to end up with way too many of one card and none of another. Well, it is extremely annoying to be shut out from a game that I really enjoy. I consider the AQ & LE errors minor compared to the VtES error. Because card backs _are_ a problem (and I've been telling you this since you first announced the change), I'm SOOL, apparently. >There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* >like the game, and its players. Any kind of card back exchange would kill >the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money >spent executing the program. While non-Magic products have been riding on >the tidal wave of Magic profits for a while, this cannot continue, and >VTES wouldn't recover in time to be a vialbe product. So what do you suggest those of us with huge Jyhad collections do? Remember, trading our cards to newbies won't work like in Mt$, as newbies have absolutely no need for the old backed cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>I never said that CD/R created "monstrous winning machines." I said that >>having a second, "low" cost, double superior vampire was an unfair advantage. >>I care because game balance is extremely important in TCGs (this is why so >>many of them play so poorly). >Any advantage CD/R gives you is almost meaningless. If every single Gangrel >was duplicated, and none of the other clans were, then that would be an >unfair advantage, yes. The disad that any given person would be more likely >to play Gangrel wouldn't be able to keep up with the advantage for having >to worry about uniqueness that much less. But one vampire does not push >a clan over this limit. And zero vampires would be that much less likely to meet any limit. Why not (since the change was made for copyright reasons instead of and game design consideration) simply make the new vampire *exactly* equivalent to the vampire that it replaced? The Raven card is obviously intended to replace Camille; let it. Just because an oversight crept into the 'fix-it' process (the name changed when only the picture should've changed), don't keep this error intact for the weak reason that 'the error isn't worrisome yet'. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >In article <48qjns$g...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >> I can't afford to take advantage of CD/R in my Dominate deck. > >Camille makes a wonderful Dominatrix and frequents my stealth/bleed deck >all the time, as will Raven when I get my hands on her/him :-) >Of course my bleed deck also uses protean as one if it's primary >disciplines :-) Peace be with you, Neither CD nor R have Dominate naturally. Every vampire in my Dominate deck has superior Dominate naturally. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <48repv$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Peace be with you, >>I tried telling WotC this when they announce the change, but they wouldn't >>listen. The simple fact is that different card backs do cause problems. >Obviously the card back change was going to cause *some* problems. The point >was that the existing name (and therefore cardbacks) were causing problems >that were at least as bad, or at least, problems that we considered >to be worse. People are taking the mixed card backs way too seriously. (translation: it seems to be significantly hindering acceptance and sales of V:TES) [>> Jyhad is less important to WotC than Magic -- look at the trade-in record] > >The Antiquities and Legends tradeins happened because of fuckups in the >collation, either on our side or on Carte Mundi's. This is a completely >different animal than a deliberate change to a product in order to improve it, >and to fix crippling problems in certain international markets. >There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* >like the game, and its players. Yup. You obviously like us... >Any kind of card back exchange would kill >the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money >spent executing the program. ...but only as long as you can easily make money off us. Or at least think you can. But it's very good of you to say so in public. Such tremendous customer appreciation just makes my heart go pitter-pat with joy <sarcasm alert>. [any kind of exchange would render V:TES a "non-viable" product]. IMO, it's the lack of exchange that's making V:TES a non-viable product. But we'll see who's right. I expect V:TES to languish on the shelves, and people to use proxies for Dark Soverigns. And therefore only buy enough DS to have card texts. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

Before I could do anything to stop it, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* > like the game, and its players. Any kind of card back exchange would kill > the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money > spent executing the program. While non-Magic products have been riding on > the tidal wave of Magic profits for a while, this cannot continue, and > VTES wouldn't recover in time to be a vialbe product. You could almost read this to say that Magic profits are down. -- "It's at the end of his arm," thought Frito, nervously | Brian shaking it, "it's got to be a hand." | Wilson

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Obviously the card back change was going to cause *some* problems. The point >>was that the existing name (and therefore cardbacks) were causing problems >>that were at least as bad, or at least, problems that we considered >>to be worse. People are taking the mixed card backs way too seriously. >Not too long ago, you said that card backs weren't a problem. What changed >your mind? I have corresponded with gamers in Europe and the Middle East >(Israel, specifically) and none of them felt that "Jyhad" being on the back of >cards would affect whether gamers purchased the game or not (gamers being a >more offense-resistant sort of human and all). I understand that you/WotC >considered the change necessary, even when the gaming community told you >otherwise. I believe that it (changing backs) was a poor decision. I'm >taking the card back change 'seriously' because it prohibits me from buying >any of the Jyhad expansions that I've been waiting over a year for. OK, there's some confusion here as to exactly what kinds of "problems" are/were being referred to. Obviously changing the card backs was going to cause PR problems. What they do not do, particularly, is promote cheating, and those were the "problems" I was referring to above. Trying to cheat by using different card backs is no different than trying to cheat by orienting your Jyhad cards different ways in your library. The card back change does not prohibit you from buying any of the VTES expansions. The old backs are still supported, which is why they're allowed in tournaments, and you can play with a mix of backs just fine. I understand that you don't *want* to buy cards with VTES backs, but just say so. Don't pretend that it's impossible for you to play with both. >can we agree that the AQ & LE tradeins were done to "satisfy" the customers? Obviously any trade-in is done to satisfy the customers. >As someone who bought both AQ & LE in significant quantity (as a player), I >can attest that it was very annoying to end up with way too many of one card >and none of another. Well, it is extremely annoying to be shut out from a game >that I really enjoy. I consider the AQ & LE errors minor compared to the >VtES error. Because card backs _are_ a problem (and I've been telling you this >since you first announced the change), I'm SOOL, apparently. Yes, I understand where you are coming from. But in all seriousness, *you* are the one shutting yourself out from VTES, not us. Yes, your life would be easier if the card backs had not changed. But they had to. You can either cope, or you can mope. >>There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* >>like the game, and its players. Any kind of card back exchange would kill >>the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money >>spent executing the program. While non-Magic products have been riding on >>the tidal wave of Magic profits for a while, this cannot continue, and >>VTES wouldn't recover in time to be a vialbe product. >So what do you suggest those of us with huge Jyhad collections do?... Play with both kinds of cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>I never said that CD/R created "monstrous winning machines." I said that >>having a second, "low" cost, double superior vampire was an unfair advantage. >>I care because game balance is extremely important in TCGs (this is why so >>many of them play so poorly). > >Any advantage CD/R gives you is almost meaningless. If every single Gangrel >was duplicated, and none of the other clans were, then that would be an >unfair advantage, yes. The disad that any given person would be more likely >to play Gangrel wouldn't be able to keep up with the advantage for having >to worry about uniqueness that much less. But one vampire does not push >a clan over this limit. Peace Tom, In that case, can I change the name on one copy of either Anvil or Bianca and add that to my combat deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>Obviously the card back change was going to cause *some* problems. The point >>>was that the existing name (and therefore cardbacks) were causing problems >>>that were at least as bad, or at least, problems that we considered >>>to be worse. People are taking the mixed card backs way too seriously. >>Not too long ago, you said that card backs weren't a problem. What changed >>your mind? I have corresponded with gamers in Europe and the Middle East >>(Israel, specifically) and none of them felt that "Jyhad" being on the back of >>cards would affect whether gamers purchased the game or not (gamers being a >>more offense-resistant sort of human and all). I understand that you/WotC >>considered the change necessary, even when the gaming community told you >>otherwise. I believe that it (changing backs) was a poor decision. I'm >>taking the card back change 'seriously' because it prohibits me from buying >>any of the Jyhad expansions that I've been waiting over a year for. > >OK, there's some confusion here as to exactly what kinds of "problems" >are/were being referred to. Obviously changing the card backs was going >to cause PR problems. What they do not do, particularly, is promote >cheating, and those were the "problems" I was referring to above. Trying >to cheat by using different card backs is no different than trying to cheat >by orienting your Jyhad cards different ways in your library. Peace Tom, If the card back change doesn't promote cheating, why do the tourney rules require a 40-60 split?? I've already addressed this (the ease of cheating with different card backs) and I've yet to see anyone disprove any of my examples, then the Official Tournament Rules back me up . . . what else I am supposed to conclude? >The card back change does not prohibit you from buying any of the VTES >expansions. The old backs are still supported, which is why they're >allowed in tournaments, and you can play with a mix of backs just fine. >I understand that you don't *want* to buy cards with VTES backs, but just >say so. Don't pretend that it's impossible for you to play with both. Yes, it does (see below). >>can we agree that the AQ & LE tradeins were done to "satisfy" the customers? > >Obviously any trade-in is done to satisfy the customers. Good, we agree that WotC has done things in the past which negatively impacted the company economically for the sole reason of satifying the customers. It is too bad that Jyhad customers are less valuable (sp) than Magic ones. >>As someone who bought both AQ & LE in significant quantity (as a player), I >>can attest that it was very annoying to end up with way too many of one card >>and none of another. Well, it is extremely annoying to be shut out from a game >>that I really enjoy. I consider the AQ & LE errors minor compared to the >>VtES error. Because card backs _are_ a problem (and I've been telling you this >>since you first announced the change), I'm SOOL, apparently. > >Yes, I understand where you are coming from. But in all seriousness, *you* >are the one shutting yourself out from VTES, not us. Yes, your life would >be easier if the card backs had not changed. But they had to. You can either >cope, or you can mope. Ok, Tom, IF I were to buy a box of DS cards, how easily could I integrate them into my existing collection and build a tournament legal deck? I can't. I can use NONE of the new vampires (all backs must be alike) and unless there are some fantastic cards that I want a LOT of in my new decks (built out of only one set of vamps), then I going to have extreme trouble getting a 40-60 split in my library. Quite simply, I can't cope. WotC has prohibited me from coping. I saw this coming, but my "Cassandra effect" kicked in and almost no one listened. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. If life would have been easier, why did you change the backs. They didn't have to. As I said above, I've spoken with foreign gamers, including some from Israel, and they did not feel that the name was a problem. >>>There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* >>>like the game, and its players. Any kind of card back exchange would kill >>>the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money >>>spent executing the program. While non-Magic products have been riding on >>>the tidal wave of Magic profits for a while, this cannot continue, and >>>VTES wouldn't recover in time to be a vialbe product. >>So what do you suggest those of us with huge Jyhad collections do?... > >Play with both kinds of cards. I can't, legally. [ quoted text not captured ]

Camille is now MORE likely to contest. Just as many people will have Camille Deveraux as before, probably more. Hence, it is now just as likely for CD to come out twice as it was before. However, in addition, there will be people packing Raven, in fact, the number of people playing Raven will be nearly identical to the number of people playing CD, because these will be the same people. In addition, this Raven will not be replacing a second copy of CD, but will be giving the boot to some non-CD vampire (in the vast majority of cases anyway). So, CD is just as likely to contest as she was before, and Raven is probably just as likely to contest as CD was, so the probability of a Vampire who is exactly like CD contesting is neatly doubled. While it is true that if you pull out Raven, and I pull out CD, there will be no contesting, that is statistically meaningless, as before the invention of Raven the vampire slot taken up by Raven would have most likely been some other Gangrel (Zack North perhaps?), and NOT a second copy of CD. Ritaxis --

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.951120224834.365B-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > In article <48rdl6$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R > Wylie) wrote: > > > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >>[TOM wrote] > > >> Same principle, different stats. Having vampires of same capacity > and same > > >> disciplines just isn't that big of a deal. And if it is a real > benefit, it's > > >> a self-limiting benefit, just as with any unique card: if the cards > are that > > >> good, it's that much more likely that you'll be contesting the > cards, or not > > >> playing them in the first place to avoid contention. > > >Under that logic this card should be fine to put into V:tE$ - > > > Rise of the Antedeluvian: Unique Master (3 pool) > > > During your untap spend one pool. Your prey must choose one > > > minion that they control. That minion is burned. This is > > > not considered diablerie. > > > > > >After all, a card that good is self-limiting. People will put it into > > >their deck. > > > > Democritus with a 6 capacity would be too good. Playing a hunting ground > > for free would be too good. Thadius Zho at a cost of 2 would be too good. > > I agree, but this example shows, somewhat ridiculously, that "if the card > is so good, everyone will put it in" logic is invalid. Of course, > Camille/Raven is _nowhere_ near as unbalancing as "Rise of the > Antedeluvian" (or Justicar Retribution ;), but it is an advantage. Tom > does answer this below: > > > > > Obvious, "self-limiting" does not mean "it is impossible to imbalance this > > card." But it *is* a balancing factor: you can't plunk down as many copies > > as you want, and you have to worry about other people playing the same > card. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Yes, Raven/Camille lets you work around the first part of the balancing > > factor, but they also make the second part more relevant. Yes, having both > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > is better than having just one, but having both does not imbalance the > game. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > We agree that Camille/Raven allows you to get around (1) plunking down > multiples. What we do not agree about is (2) worry of another person > playing the same card. Also, we agree that (a) having more is better > than having just one. What we do not agree about is that (b) there is > not game imbalance due to the Camille/Raven situation. > > First, (2). See my post earlier in this thread. To reiterate: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.951117173235.1118A-100000@pentose>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > EX1: The first game of the day, Alex pulls out his Gangrel deck. No > one > > else happens to be playing Gangrel. His deck is packed with 2 Camille > > and 2 Raven. He is likely to get one of the four in his opening > > uncontrolled hand (~86% chance). Should the two cards contest each > > other, he has a ~11% chance of getting a Raven/Camille without > > "duplication" in his opening. If they do not contest, this more than > > doubles to over ~24%. Thus, he is more than twice as likely to recieve > a > > Raven/Camille and 3 other vampires. > > > > EX2: The second game of the day, Beth joins Alex with Gangrel decks. > > She also has 2 Raven and 2 Camille in her crupt. With contesting, > there > > is now a ~5% chance that they will both have at least one Raven/Camile > [sic] in > > their opening. Without contesting, this becomes ~3% chance that they > > will both have Raven or both have Camille. > > Chances of contesting are roughly half of what occurs without making > Raven/Camille the same vamp. In the second example, it takes a third > player playing 2 Ravens & 2 Camilles to make this be about ~5.5%. In a > similar situation for any other vampire, this would mean 10% chance of > contesting. > Except that that is stupid logic. Because the 2 Ravens would NOT be replaced with 2 more CDs, they would be replaced with some other Gangerl(s). Yes, CD is a fine Vampire, but having 1/3 of your deck consist of her is idiotic. > According to Tom: [2]=>[b]. However, the worry is lessened without > contesting issues. [b], or no infairness, is not a conclusion that can > be reached. > That doesn't make any sense. You just successfully proved that having an extra vampire of your clan is an advantage when your other option is to have 1/3 of your crypt be composed of a single vampire, if and only if, noone else has any chance of contesting with you. Whoopee. That must have been an incredibly difficult deduction. :) Once you successfully discounted ALL of the counter points to your argument (by assuming that noone else had ANY gangrel at the table, and that 2 Ravens would be replaced by 2 CDs, which is an irrational act), you were able to `mathematically' prove that your points were the only ones left. Try a little bit. Misinformation like yours is hard to swallow. > In article <48reck$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R > Wylie) wrote: > > > James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: > > >I never said that CD/R created "monstrous winning machines." I said that > > >having a second, "low" cost, double superior vampire was an unfair > advantage. Last time I checked, when Vampires go from 1 to 10, 5 is in fact `middle' and is not `low'. As I have stated before, CD has 5 levels of Disciplines, and has a capacity of 5. She is totally average in every way. > > >I care because game balance is extremely important in TCGs (this is > why so > > >many of them play so poorly). > > > > It is a small advantage, but a meaningful one. Unless the other clans > also get this double vampire, the advantage will remain. In every Jyhad > game I have played, all of the little advantages added up to determine > who would win. > Like for example: ignoring oppositional arguments? :) > > Any advantage CD/R gives you is almost meaningless. > > See the above. > > > If every single Gangrel > > was duplicated, and none of the other clans were, then that would be an > > unfair advantage, yes. The disad that any given person would be more > likely > > to play Gangrel wouldn't be able to keep up with the advantage for having > > to worry about uniqueness that much less. But one vampire does not push > > a clan over this limit. > > Not a gamebreaker, no. But still an unfair advantage. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You know, that is about as two faced an argument as I have ever seen. This strikes me as being much like the religious arguments over Combat/ Voting / Bleeding that occur from time to time. > In article <48reug$3...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R > Wylie) wrote: > > > While duplicate vampires in the > > expansions are possible (Dark Sovereigns have a pair of Brujah that are > > identical except for their special ability), > > A big difference... > Depends on the ability. If the abilities are along the line of Taura Vaughn and Miranda, then this could be basically no difference at all. > > as far as I know we don't have > > plans to systematically include mid-range duplicates in each clan. > > Oh, well. IMNSHO, for the sake of game balance WoTC ought to either > include mid-range duplicates for each clan or errata Raven/Camille to be > the same vampire. > Really. At least your list of demands is short. :) > # Adrian Sullivan "<insert favorite quote here>" # Ritaxis --

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >Thomas Doehne <doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: >This is a business, remember? There is no point in producing a product >if it is not profitable. Why do you think so many RPGs go down over the years, >and why so many TCGs have already gone down? It's because they weren't >making money. We love the game, you obviously love the game, but if it >losing money consistently, it is just not going to be produced. Peace Tom, We understand that this is about $, we/I just feel that WotC is making the wrong decision and will end up losing out economically (long term). >If the Antiquities or Legends tradeins would have crippled Magic's growth, >as a VTES tradein would, they would not have been done. But Magic could >absorb the loss; VTES cannot. Maybe if VTES sales were at a level at or >above that of Jyhad, it could afford a tradein. The problem is, VtES can't afford _not_ to trade in! By chopping off a significant portion of your established customer base, you are trading short term profit for long term profit. Those established players won't buy VtES backed cards (including future expansions) nor will they intro- duce new players to the game, which will significantly hinder sale, IMO _much_ more than a trade in will. >>[any kind of exchange would render V:TES a "non-viable" product]. >>IMO, it's the lack of exchange that's making V:TES a non-viable >>product. But we'll see who's right. I expect V:TES to languish >>on the shelves, and people to use proxies for Dark Soverigns. >>And therefore only buy enough DS to have card texts. > >It's possible that a lack of a tradein will make VTES non-viable. But >a tradein will definitely make it non-viable. We're going with the >scenario where it has a chance. I disagree strongly that a trade in will destroy VtES. I don't have the hard numbers, so, I'll admit, I _might_ be wrong, but I seriously doubt it, given all the information I've been able to aquire to this point. Given the slow sales of VtES at this time, it seem that I am right in my hypothesis. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas Doehne <doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: >>There is not going to be a card back exchange, and it's because we *do* >>like the game, and its players. > >Yup. You obviously like us... > >>Any kind of card back exchange would kill >>the game. It would take forever to VTES to recover from the time and money >>spent executing the program. >...but only as long as you can easily make money off us. Or at least >think you can. But it's very good of you to say so in public. >Such tremendous customer appreciation just makes my heart go >pitter-pat with joy <sarcasm alert>. This is a business, remember? There is no point in producing a product if it is not profitable. Why do you think so many RPGs go down over the years, and why so many TCGs have already gone down? It's because they weren't making money. We love the game, you obviously love the game, but if it losing money consistently, it is just not going to be produced. If the Antiquities or Legends tradeins would have crippled Magic's growth, as a VTES tradein would, they would not have been done. But Magic could absorb the loss; VTES cannot. Maybe if VTES sales were at a level at or above that of Jyhad, it could afford a tradein. >[any kind of exchange would render V:TES a "non-viable" product]. >IMO, it's the lack of exchange that's making V:TES a non-viable >product. But we'll see who's right. I expect V:TES to languish >on the shelves, and people to use proxies for Dark Soverigns. >And therefore only buy enough DS to have card texts. It's possible that a lack of a tradein will make VTES non-viable. But a tradein will definitely make it non-viable. We're going with the scenario where it has a chance. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >>It's possible that a lack of a tradein will make VTES non-viable. But >>a tradein will definitely make it non-viable. We're going with the >>scenario where it has a chance. >I disagree strongly that a trade in will destroy VtES. I don't have >the hard numbers, so, I'll admit, I _might_ be wrong, but I seriously >doubt it, given all the information I've been able to aquire to this >point. Given the slow sales of VtES at this time, it seem that I >am right in my hypothesis. I think that Tom is talking about bookkeeping. All profit/expenses related to Jyhad/V:tES are probably tallied up together and the amount of extra attention WotC can afford to pay to the game is based on that number. Once the number gets to low, the game becomes non-viable. What if bookkeeping were done differently and "card-trade-ins" was a line on the "CCG" section of the balance sheet? Then a vampire trade-in would clearly not hurt V:tES's viability. Of course, no one would ever do that. The Magic sorting-machine error screamed "spend money to make money." Individuals were pre-ordering boxes of expansions, sight unseen, in order to have "almost a complete set." Spending for a trade-in was just protecting future, projected very large, sales. What this thread is dancing around is that "it's a business decision."

In article <495evm$t...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>As someone who bought both AQ & LE in significant quantity (as a player), I >>>can attest that it was very annoying to end up with way too many of one card >>>and none of another. Well, it is extremely annoying to be shut out from a game >>>that I really enjoy. I consider the AQ & LE errors minor compared to the >>>VtES error. Because card backs _are_ a problem (and I've been telling you this >>>since you first announced the change), I'm SOOL, apparently. >> >>Yes, I understand where you are coming from. But in all seriousness, *you* >>are the one shutting yourself out from VTES, not us. Yes, your life would >>be easier if the card backs had not changed. But they had to. You can either >>cope, or you can mope. > >Ok, Tom, IF I were to buy a box of DS cards, how easily could I integrate >them into my existing collection and build a tournament legal deck? I can't. >I can use NONE of the new vampires (all backs must be alike) and unless there >are some fantastic cards that I want a LOT of in my new decks (built out >of only one set of vamps), then I going to have extreme trouble getting a >40-60 split in my library. Quite simply, I can't cope. WotC has prohibited >me from coping. I saw this coming, but my "Cassandra effect" kicked in and >almost no one listened. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. It seems to me that James is making one point and Tom is defending a different point. Yes, a Jyhad player can buy and use VtES cards (provided he has at least 12 VtES vampires and/or 16 VtES cards that would 'work' in a particular deck strategy). This is the point I think that Tom is defending. However, a Jyhad player will not be able to use *any* VtES cards until he or she buys several boosters and/or a couple of starters. A single booster, in particular, will be unusable. There is a threshold present here that was not present in any re-releases of Magic. But that wasn't James's point. James point was that a Jyhad player could not purchase Dark Sovereigns cards (in any amount) and use them with his Jyhad decks without buying VtES. So how about it, Tom? Can you post a viable deck using Jyhad cards and Dark Sovereigns cards, with no VtES? If not, will you stop claiming that Jyhad players are to blame for their inability to use Dark Sovereigns? I will not pay for cards that I already have just so the backs will match future expansions, which is your 'solution' to my problem. My inability to be so easily parted from my money, and subsequently explaining it to you, is not 'moping'. I am coping by avoiding your products. Hunter, a former WotC customer. -- /\ J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jhunterj GURPS Bibliographer / () \ finger jhun...@io.com for GURPS bib. & Errata Co-coordinator /______\ sjg-e...@io.com "What's the point of trying if you can't be a winner?" -- Calvin

James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >If the card back change doesn't promote cheating, why do the tourney rules >require a 40-60 split?? As I understand it, the DC assumed that people would just be constantly complaining about mixing card backs "unfairly", regardless of how much truth there was to it. So they launched a preemptive strike, of sorts, and set the card mix. It's sort of like banning card sleeves... it's not clear exactly how much people were ever cheating with them, but it was clear that some people were, and that many people believe that many people were, so they were banned. >I've already addressed this (the ease of cheating >with different card backs) and I've yet to see anyone disprove any of my >examples, then the Official Tournament Rules back me up . . . what else >I am supposed to conclude? The above. >>>can we agree that the AQ & LE tradeins were done to "satisfy" the customers? >>Obviously any trade-in is done to satisfy the customers. >Good, we agree that WotC has done things in the past which negatively impacted >the company economically for the sole reason of satifying the customers. >It is too bad that Jyhad customers are less valuable (sp) than Magic ones. There is a difference between a negative impact and a death blow. A tradein for VTES would be a death blow to its economy. There is also a large difference between a straight-up oops (Legends, Antiquities) and a decision that we made and stuck with, and which happens to be unpopular (VTES). >>Yes, I understand where you are coming from. But in all seriousness, *you* >>are the one shutting yourself out from VTES, not us. Yes, your life would >>be easier if the card backs had not changed. But they had to. You can >>either cope, or you can mope. >Ok, Tom, IF I were to buy a box of DS cards, how easily could I integrate >them into my existing collection and build a tournament legal deck? I can't. >I can use NONE of the new vampires (all backs must be alike) and unless there >are some fantastic cards that I want a LOT of in my new decks (built out >of only one set of vamps), then I going to have extreme trouble getting a >40-60 split in my library. Quite simply, I can't cope. WotC has prohibited >me from coping. I saw this coming, but my "Cassandra effect" kicked in and >almost no one listened. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. One solution is to find someone with VTES cards to trade with. Which is probably not what you wanted to hear, but it occurs to me that another, and probably all-around better option, is to to make the 40-60 split for tournaments optional. After all, the sleeves rule is optional. I haven't talked to the DC about this, though. >If life would have been easier, why did you change the backs. They didn't >have to. As I said above, I've spoken with foreign gamers, including some >from Israel, and they did not feel that the name was a problem. Then we were obviously talking to different people. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <49ei65$t...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >A VTES tradein would cost us long-term profits, not just short term. >*The game cannot survive the financial hit of a tradein program.* It is >just that simple. If the lack of a tradein program also means the game >cannot survive, then so be it. But it is not at all clear that this is >true, and we will take possible survival over certain death any time. The game can survive just fine. What you mean to say is *WotC will not take the financial hit of a tradein program*. The game has no finances, WotC does. You are, I believe, trying to shift the responsibility for saying "No" to a trade-in from Wizards of the Cost to the players -- "You don't want to see the game die, do you? 'Cause you'd be killing it by trading your cards in for news ones from WotC!" WotC doesn't want to do a trade-in, that's their perogative. But don't tell me that WotC couldn't survive the financial hit of a trade-in. Hunter [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorry if this was already addressed, but what was the reason for removing Camille Deveroux? She was one of my favorite vamps. scott

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >>Thomas Doehne <doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote: >The problem is, VtES can't afford _not_ to trade in! By chopping off a >significant portion of your established customer base, you are trading >short term profit for long term profit. Those established players won't >buy VtES backed cards (including future expansions) nor will they intro- >duce new players to the game, which will significantly hinder sale, IMO >_much_ more than a trade in will. I don't know where you are from James, but here in St. Louis, from what I can see sales are fine. New players are buying, old players are buying, and with the release of Dark Soveriegns even more people will be buying. I don't know how many of the V:tES cards you've seen, but they look great. It's worth buying just based on appearence. >>>product. But we'll see who's right. I expect V:TES to languish >>>on the shelves, and people to use proxies for Dark Soverigns. >>>And therefore only buy enough DS to have card texts. So far V:tES isn't going to languish anywhere. I'm having to search for them here. I'm encouraged that we'll keep getting expansions, just based on what I've seen in sales. >I disagree strongly that a trade in will destroy VtES. I don't have >the hard numbers, so, I'll admit, I _might_ be wrong, but I seriously >doubt it, given all the information I've been able to aquire to this >point. Given the slow sales of VtES at this time, it seem that I >am right in my hypothesis. > Again, I don't see V:tES as having slow sales. The comic shop I goto said it's selling great. Better than Jyhad ever did, even when they had them for .99 a pack. > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle Just my .02 ... Chris rho...@medicine.wustl.edu

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>If the card back change doesn't promote cheating, why do the tourney rules >>require a 40-60 split?? > >As I understand it, the DC assumed that people would just be constantly >complaining about mixing card backs "unfairly", regardless of how much >truth there was to it. So they launched a preemptive strike, of sorts, >and set the card mix. It's sort of like banning card sleeves... it's not >clear exactly how much people were ever cheating with them, but it was clear >that some people were, and that many people believe that many people were, >so they were banned. > >>I've already addressed this (the ease of cheating >>with different card backs) and I've yet to see anyone disprove any of my >>examples, then the Official Tournament Rules back me up . . . what else >>I am supposed to conclude? > >The above. Peace Tom, So the DC agrees with me and the RT does not. Maybe the DC should convince the RT that I'm right. 8^) >>>>can we agree that the AQ & LE tradeins were done to "satisfy" the customers? >>>Obviously any trade-in is done to satisfy the customers. >>Good, we agree that WotC has done things in the past which negatively impacted >>the company economically for the sole reason of satifying the customers. >>It is too bad that Jyhad customers are less valuable (sp) than Magic ones. > >There is a difference between a negative impact and a death blow. A tradein >for VTES would be a death blow to its economy. There is also a large >difference between a straight-up oops (Legends, Antiquities) and a decision >that we made and stuck with, and which happens to be unpopular (VTES). I do not believe that a trade in would be a death blow to WotC, given the continued success of Mt$. So, you are willing to cover for the printer's mistakes (LE & AN), but not for your own? It wasn't as if you didn't receive enough advanced warning of what the result would be if you changed card backs (lots of people have been harping on this since it was first suggested). The card back decision is unpopular because it shuns the established players, encourages cheating, and was strongly lobbied against but happened anyway, which gives the impression that you don't listen to your customers. >>>Yes, I understand where you are coming from. But in all seriousness, *you* >>>are the one shutting yourself out from VTES, not us. Yes, your life would >>>be easier if the card backs had not changed. But they had to. You can >>>either cope, or you can mope. >>Ok, Tom, IF I were to buy a box of DS cards, how easily could I integrate >>them into my existing collection and build a tournament legal deck? I can't. >>I can use NONE of the new vampires (all backs must be alike) and unless there >>are some fantastic cards that I want a LOT of in my new decks (built out >>of only one set of vamps), then I going to have extreme trouble getting a >>40-60 split in my library. Quite simply, I can't cope. WotC has prohibited >>me from coping. I saw this coming, but my "Cassandra effect" kicked in and >>almost no one listened. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. > >One solution is to find someone with VTES cards to trade with. Why would someone who has lots of VtES cards trade with me? Unless I trade him/her/it a large pile of cards, they won't be able to use them either - the 40/60 split works both ways. This is not a viable or reasonable solution. >Which is probably not what you wanted to hear, but it occurs to me that >another, and probably all-around better option, is to to make the 40-60 >split for tournaments optional. After all, the sleeves rule is optional. >I haven't talked to the DC about this, though. Whether I want to hear it has nothing to do with whether the trade with other players solution will work. It won't for exactly the same reason that I can't buy expansion cards. Yes, the 40/60 rule can be optional if you know the other players and trust them not to cheat, but 1) I'll still know what the cards are likely to be given the backs (which is information I don't want to have) and 2) I'll not be able to play with expansion cards in sanctioned tourneys (I'll be at Origins & GenCon next year), so again I'm prevented from purchasing expansion cards because WotC apparently doesn't want me to. >>If life would have been easier, why did you change the backs. They didn't >>have to. As I said above, I've spoken with foreign gamers, including some >>from Israel, and they did not feel that the name was a problem. > >Then we were obviously talking to different people. Obviously. [ quoted text not captured ]

>what was the reason for removing Camille Deveroux? Camille was dropped because the painting used for her picture was created from a photo of a Victoria's Secret model (Stephanie Seymour), and WotC wanted to avoid a lawsuit. Same reason they dropped all their famous song quotes. Despite what the tournament rules are I will be playing both Camille and Raven in some of my gangrel decks, I'll just use double packed sleeves so that all the card backs are the same. It seems to me that WotC wants those of us who have hundreds (if not thousands) of cards to go out and buy V:TES so we can have even more copies of cards we already have dozens of just so we can have a "legal" card mixed library and crypt. The double packed sleeves or opaque sleeve idea was completely shot down by the tournament rules since anyone can ask you to take those sleeves off, whoops! you're deck is no longer legal, too bad :-). The solution for this problem was to "buy singles", but I know of nowhere that is selling V:TES singles, and I imagine that if a place did it would be stuck with all the cards that were in Jyhad with V:TES backs while all the new cards would sell out quick (ok maybe the freak drives, golcondas and a few others would sell, but chances are you already have some of those to sell if your in the buisness already). And it's those new cards that I want the most, but who is going to trade or sell them when very few people have them (and they had to go out and buy them the hard way!) ~Biomechanoid

In article <49hoon$e...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>Which is probably not what you wanted to hear, but it occurs to me that >>another, and probably all-around better option, is to to make the 40-60 >>split for tournaments optional. After all, the sleeves rule is optional. >>I haven't talked to the DC about this, though. The tournament rules state: 3. The use of plastic card sleeves or other protective devices on any player's cards will only be allowed if all players at the table agree to allow them in the round. If any player(s) at the table do not wish card sleeves to be used in the round for any reason, all sleeves must be removed from all decks at that table for the duration of the round. So I show up to the tournament with my deck that does not a 40-60 split, but I do have opaque or double packed sleeves. If ONE player at the table doesn't want people to use sleeves than I must take my cards out of the sleeves, I no longer have a legal deck and am disqualified. I hardly see the sleeves rule as optional, sounds like 40-60 split or pray no one demands you take off your sleeves. Oh look my deck made it to the final round, but Bob just realized that my sleeves may be hiding an illegal mix, so he asks me to remove my sleeves, oh look at that I lose. :-)

Hello, With all that talk about V:teS and conflicting press releases of various age: How do the library cardbacks look like? How do the crypt cardbacks look like? And of lesser importance, how have the various types of cards changed on front? (Equipment, Action, ActionModifier, Retainer, Ally, Reaction, Political Action, Combat, all of the above requiring disciplines or clans, Master, Unique Master, Unique Location Master, Out-of-turn Master, Skill Master, Master requiring clans) Yours Lutz l...@cs.tu-berlin.de -- Happiness? - - - Roger Taylor

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >This is a business, remember? There is no point in producing a product >if it is not profitable. Why do you think so many RPGs go down over the years, >and why so many TCGs have already gone down? It's because they weren't >making money. We love the game, you obviously love the game, but if it >losing money consistently, it is just not going to be produced. Either in terms of sales or of play interest, Jyhad has been one of the most successful TCGs (in spite of the card back fiasco and the absence of an expansion). If WotC can't make money from Jyhad-level successes, it is a Magic-only company. James McClure writes: :I disagree strongly that a trade in will destroy VtES. I don't have :the hard numbers, so, I'll admit, I _might_ be wrong, but I seriously :doubt it, given all the information I've been able to aquire to this :point. Given the slow sales of VtES at this time, it seem that I :am right in my hypothesis. WotC is not going to give in on the trade-in issue now. Try again in a few months when V:tES heads for the deep discount bins.

Well I broke down and bought 2 booster packs of V:TES today. In my first pack I got Raven! For those of you who haven't seen the card it's great! The painting is IMO an improvement to Camille's (no offense to Camille of course). I must admit I don't like the wide borders around the discipline squares/diamonds, but the that's a designer's decision not the artists. ~Biomechanoid

In article <49ie8e$c...@cerberus-138.wustl.edu>, Chris Rhodes <rhodesc@medicine> wrote: >So far V:tES isn't going to languish anywhere. I'm having to search >for them here. I'm encouraged that we'll keep getting expansions, just >based on what I've seen in sales. >rho...@medicine.wustl.edu > Actually, we have to search for the cards here too, but that's because none of the gaming shops in College Park (Maryland) are willing to carry it!

In article <49hs6n$e...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, l...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Lutz Hofmann) wrote: > Hello, > > With all that talk about V:teS and conflicting press releases of > various age: How do the library cardbacks look like? > How do the crypt cardbacks look like? The name is the only difference. > And of lesser importance, how have the various types of cards changed on > front? (Equipment, Action, ActionModifier, Retainer, Ally, Reaction, > Political Action, Combat, all of the above requiring disciplines > or clans, Master, Unique Master, Unique Location Master, Out-of-turn > Master, Skill Master, Master requiring clans) All masters are unchanged in background, but master skills now show the symbol in the text. The only skill sign I've seen a change to is Animalism (negatived). Equipment is black background with keys; actions are green; combat cards are red; retainers black/pink in a honeycomb-like pattern; political actions are parchment; modifiers are gray, with the same pattern as actions; reactions look like a broken mirror. J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: : > So I show up to the tournament with my deck that does not a 40-60 : >split, but I do have opaque or double packed sleeves. If ONE player at : >the table doesn't want people to use sleeves than I must take my cards out : >of the sleeves, I no longer have a legal deck and am disqualified. I : >hardly see the sleeves rule as optional, sounds like 40-60 split or pray : >no one demands you take off your sleeves. Oh look my deck made it to the : >final round, but Bob just realized that my sleeves may be hiding an : >illegal mix, so he asks me to remove my sleeves, oh look at that I lose. : I'm not sure what your point is. It's entirely possible for a marked deck : to get through a tournament without ever being challenged, sleeves or no : sleeves, card backs mixed or identical, card backs symmetric or off-center, : etc. Simply removing your sleeves is not going to guarantee that someone : will notice the deck. Playing with sleeves is not going to guarantee that : nobody will challenge your deck. : Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for : aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. I will not flame, I will not flame....damn, I can't respond without flaming. Bye

In article <49id6j$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >>what was the reason for removing Camille Deveroux? >Camille was dropped because the painting used for her picture was created >from a photo of a Victoria's Secret model (Stephanie Seymour), and WotC >wanted to avoid a lawsuit. Same reason they dropped all their famous song >quotes. Despite what the tournament rules are I will be playing both Not that they bothered to change Don Cruez, who bears a striking similarity to an underwear ad... | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | http://hci.ise.vt.edu/~jsciv/ +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

rhodesc@medicine (Chris Rhodes) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: >>The problem is, VtES can't afford _not_ to trade in! By chopping off a >>significant portion of your established customer base, you are trading >>short term profit for long term profit. Those established players won't >>buy VtES backed cards (including future expansions) nor will they intro- >>duce new players to the game, which will significantly hinder sale, IMO >>_much_ more than a trade in will. > >I don't know where you are from James, but here in St. Louis, from what >I can see sales are fine. New players are buying, old players are buying, >and with the release of Dark Soveriegns even more people will be buying. >I don't know how many of the V:tES cards you've seen, but they look >great. It's worth buying just based on appearence. Peace Chris, First, a friend of mine now works in St. Louis. If you have an established group, I'll have to try to point him in your direction (he has only played a couple of times, but really likes the game). Second, here in Louisville, the local players boycotted when they heard about the card back change, so sales are nearly non-existant. The appearance of the front of the card has nothing to do with why I won't buy VtES/DS. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <49ltmh$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure (but I think that I know) what Biomech8's point is. My basic opinion is this. Pretend for a second that he does not have V:tES cards, but mostly Jyhad. He is playing a Toreador Deck. He LOVES a bunch of the Dark Sovereigns cards. He puts them in his deck. So his deck isn't mark, he doubles and sleeves ALL the cards. 40-60% of his deck is not of V:tES. Maybe 20% is. One player at the table does not like his sleeves. He must remove them. He is disqualified because he does not conform to the split. He is saying that this is wrong. I agree. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

Hunter Johnson <jhun...@meaddata.com> wrote: >>A VTES tradein would cost us long-term profits, not just short term. >>*The game cannot survive the financial hit of a tradein program.* It is >>just that simple. If the lack of a tradein program also means the game >>cannot survive, then so be it. But it is not at all clear that this is >>true, and we will take possible survival over certain death any time. >The game can survive just fine. What you mean to say is *WotC will >not take the financial hit of a tradein program*. The game has no >finances, WotC does. You are, I believe, trying to shift the >responsibility for saying "No" to a trade-in from Wizards of the Cost >to the players -- "You don't want to see the game die, do you? 'Cause >you'd be killing it by trading your cards in for news ones from WotC!" > >WotC doesn't want to do a trade-in, that's their perogative. But >don't tell me that WotC couldn't survive the financial hit of a >trade-in. *WotC* can survive the hit of a tradein. *VTES* cannot. While non-Magic products have been using the crutch of the Magic products for a while, that practice cannot continue. VTES must survive on its own, and it cannot do that with a tradein. [ quoted text not captured ]

This may have been said before, but it seems that the two styles of card backs and possible advantages to carefully using this information as part of your game strategy is self adjusting. Just say that anyone can use any card back in any proportion. Then all is fair, because anyone can get Jyhad, and anyone can get VTES, and everyone can set up a system using card backs which may give an advantage. Why does everyone consider this cheating?? It is just another strategy option. Chick...@msn.com

In article <49ncu8$g...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: > Not that they bothered to change Don Cruez, who bears a striking >similarity to an underwear ad... Actually I heard a rumor before V:TES came out that he was being dropped as well so I acquired a few as insurance, but as we now know he was kept, maybe his position as Justicar kept him (not to mention greater potence and celerity!). I know I wouldn't want to be the one to tell him he had to go. :-) ~Biomechanoid

In article <49ltmh$g...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >I'm not sure what your point is. It's entirely possible for a marked deck >to get through a tournament without ever being challenged, sleeves or no >sleeves, card backs mixed or identical, card backs symmetric or off-center, >etc. Simply removing your sleeves is not going to guarantee that someone >will notice the deck. Playing with sleeves is not going to guarantee that >nobody will challenge your deck. My point is that more practical and fair methods of resolving the card back issue are shot down by the tournament rules. Are you suggesting I cheat and hope no one calls me on it? I may be undead, but I do have my honor (of course there is exeption for the Ravnos). Chances are that I will never play in a tournament, but I would like to play with my double packed sleeves solution (even if I had a 40/60 split) because I wouldn't want anyone to know what type of cards I had in my hand. Sure you can cheat, but this is a game, I just want to be sure that I can play this game and people aren't going to be hung up on the tournament rules and using them for justification (though honestly I haven't met anyone like this yet.) I just think there are other solutions to the problem and I don't want to have to put out the $ to conform to the official solution when I can use my own (which I think is better) to fix the problem.

In article <49ncu8$g...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >In article <49id6j$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, >Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: >>>what was the reason for removing Camille Deveroux? >>Camille was dropped because the painting used for her picture was created >>from a photo of a Victoria's Secret model (Stephanie Seymour), and WotC >>wanted to avoid a lawsuit. Same reason they dropped all their famous song >>quotes. Despite what the tournament rules are I will be playing both > > Not that they bothered to change Don Cruez, who bears a striking >similarity to an underwear ad... Hrm, Lucia Pacciola only has one C in her last name in VTES. How odd. Judy -- "All roads lead to Montgomery County. Or at least widen there." -- Tom Madigan <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Judith C. Grunberger * jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jcookson WSSC Environmental Advisory Committee: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.951201144041.744A-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >I'm not sure (but I think that I know) what Biomech8's point is. My >basic opinion is this. Pretend for a second that he does not have V:tES >cards, but mostly Jyhad. He is playing a Toreador Deck. He LOVES a >bunch of the Dark Sovereigns cards. He puts them in his deck. So his >deck isn't mark, he doubles and sleeves ALL the cards. 40-60% of his >deck is not of V:tES. Maybe 20% is. One player at the table does not >like his sleeves. He must remove them. He is disqualified because he >does not conform to the split. > >He is saying that this is wrong. I agree. This is basically what I was trying to get at. Thank you for rewording it a little better than I originally did. How can I not buy V:TES cards if I want to play DS? Looks like a marketing scam to me. How do you get someone to buy what they already have? Looks like WotC is doing just that. So what if I have 3 of every vampire, if I want to play with one Raven or any of the new vamps in DS I have to re-buy those cards. ~Biomechanoid

jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) wrote: quotes. Despite what the tournament rules are I will be playing both >Hrm, Lucia Pacciola only has one C in her last name in VTES. How odd. Then they're two different vampires! Does that mean they won't contest? Can I play with both in my crypt? TJH :-)