Awazzzz and the new set

Awa...@aol.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<a8b0e61c.0207...@posting.google.com>... <snip crap> James might be missing your points Awazzzz because you're posts are rather unorganized... However, YOU might be missing the point also. If you don't like the game, if you don't like forming new nueral pathways, and if you think that rules lawyers are the ones that will win this game the most (I disagree, being a big time rules lawyer, and losing often, and I've also seen people win often, who aren't rules lawyers), and if those things bother you then stop playing. Eliminate stress from your life Awazzzz. Stop complaining about something you can't change. Either go with the flow or get a new river. Posting here, arguing with James or any of the other 'regulars' isn't going to get you anywhere except deeper into annoyance. You'll get more annoyed and you'll annoy readers on this side. Save everyone the bother please, and come to a conclusions about the new set and stick with it. Then, after coming to that conclusion, act on it. Don't dick around here anymore. Do something constructive. If you think you're here to recruit people to your !CE clause fine... but know that you'll get flamed for it, or something. Why? This is a VTES newsgroup. We talk about VTES, because we like it. Those who don't are allowed their say, but are generally encouraged to say it and then stop whining and come to a conclusion and/or leave quietly. Do so. Now. ~SV

Well, I guess I kinda gotta reply to this one - a thread with my name on it - yay! - You guys want a piece of me? This is the thread!! vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) writes in the first message of my very own thread: > >However, YOU might be missing the point also. If you don't like the game, if you don't like forming new nueral pathways, and if you think that rules lawyers are the ones that will win this game the most (I disagree, being a big time rules lawyer, and losing often, and I've also seen people win often, who aren't rules lawyers), and if those things bother you then stop playing. I have stopped playing - which is really sad because this was my favorite game. I have stopped playing because my cards have all been wallpapered (or are now destined to be in the future.) I know this sounds like a soundbite, but it is true. There are three main reasons CE "outdates" my cards: 1 - crypt restrictions, 2 - design changes, 3 - continued rewrites. 1: Crypt restrictions: Now of course people say that the supposed reason behind the new crypt restrictions is an issue of balance to prevent the "ubercrypt" - not a marketing technique - and while I think otherwise, I am happy to use that assumption during this thread. Now as far as balance goes, I state now, that the crypt restrictions will also effect balance in a very negative way that is very close to what has been referred to as "the effective banning of infereior cards by broken cards." That phrase does not exactly cover it, so I will explain: Assuming that there will be groups above number 3 - and LSJ has said that the 3 implies that there will be groups above 3 - there will be different sets of vamps to choose from (group 1-2, group 2-3, group 3-4, group 4-5, etc.) Now, in each group there are different crypts to make in them (Brujas, weenies, Princes, etc.) Now, as we all know, balance is a curve, not a line. Cards will continue to be spread across the curve in power levels - and this includes vampires. For instance, Blythe was printed overpowered and had to be erratted. Another example would be Basil compared to Uriah Winter - They are both 1 cap vamps, but Basil is a better vampire and gets more play - due to the fact that Uriah will leave you, and Basil has a very popular discipline. The same will be true for entire groups. Yes, for some decks, group 1-2 will probably still be the best choice (Brujas with Dom will probably be one of those decks). And for some decks other groups will be better. If one was going to make a Bruja deck (using normal clan disciplines) then they would most likely choose either the grouping the has the most Brujas or the grouping that has "the best" Brujas. Group 1 has about 100 vamps in it; group 2 has between 200-300 vamps in it, and so far Group 3 has 100 vamps in it. No one is sure whether or not the Anarch set will be group 3 or 4. If it group 3 then the group 2-3 grouping will have more vampires than group 1-2 - making group 1-2 less viable for deck construction. If Anarch set is Group 4 then there will be only 150 vampires in the 3-4 grouping making it a less viable choice for purposes of choosing from the largest selection. Now, from what we have seen in the preview, the vampires in group 3 are designed using a different pool / discipline / ability formula than the vamps in Group 1. This being so, group 2-3 is a better choice for deck construction where someone wants the "best" vampires. These two influences of vamps in a set - number of vamps and quality of vamps - will effect the balance of crypt building for as long as this games continues to exist - and already (although the set is not out yet) it seems that group 2-3 will be a better choice for crypt construction than group 1-2. Why do I want to continue playing with my Group 1 vamps? Because Tura Vaun has big breasts, that's why! 2. Card Design. The new cards have a complete new look that includes changing symbols, moving symbols, changing backgrounds, etc. Previously in V:TES all Toreadors had the same rosy background - in addition to the symbol on the card this was a great way to tell that the vamp is a Toreador. Now not all Toreadors look the same. If a player is playing a deck with 4 clans in it, it will be difficult for other players to know which vamp is from what clan. While the backs of the cards are the same, using the new cards with the old cards is difficult playing. When the cards are in my hand, I fan them and can see the title to know what card it is - now I will have to fan some of them farther or all I will see is a green bar. This is a marketing ploy to "encourage" purchasing of the new set by "outdating" the original cards. 3. Rewording, Recosting, Rebalancing cards. This has been going on for years now, and guess what, the game still isn't balanced enough to stop rebalancing cards that were in the original set. While it is true that some cards were broken when compared to other cards in the same set - the original set set the precedence for what balance is (blur costs 1 blood, faceless night only requires obfuscate). Cards made in later sets were balanced against the existing cards. (catatonic fear looked at Majesty to see how to be designed) A Staple card at the top of the curve sets where the top of the curve is. Now, I am supposed to do what, paint a blood symbol on all of my majestys??? What if they change it again - do I scrape the paint off? Again, this makes the new cards more playable than the old cards. >Eliminate stress from your life Awazzzz. Stop complaining about something you can't change. Either go with the flow or get a new river. Posting here, arguing with James or any of the other 'regulars' isn't going to get you anywhere except deeper into annoyance. You'll get more annoyed and you'll annoy readers on this side. I am just posting my viewpoint. If you wish to refute me, that's cool, but I will probably write a counter. >Save everyone the bother please, and come to a conclusions about the new set and stick with it. Then, after coming to that conclusion, act on it. Don't dick around here anymore. Do something constructive. If you think you're here to recruit people to your !CE clause fine... but know that you'll get flamed for it, or something. Why? This is a VTES newsgroup. We talk about VTES, because we like it. Those who don't are allowed their say, but are generally encouraged to say it and then stop whining and come to a conclusion and/or leave quietly. > >Do so. Now. I will deliver my final rant upon the release of CE. Until that time I am attempting (feebly) to get a product recall and redesign.

Group 1 has about 100 vamps in it; group 2 has between > 200-300 vamps in it, and so far Group 3 has 100 vamps in it. Group 1 had 112 vampires. Group 2 has 372 vampires. which means that group 1 is only 23% of the availible vampires. (112/372+112=.2316) No one is sure > whether or not the Anarch set will be group 3 or 4. True, but I am willing to bet serious cash that it will be group 3. If it group 3 then the > group 2-3 grouping will have more vampires than group 1-2 - making group 1-2 > less viable for deck construction. Only based upon raw numbers of vampires, you cannot base it on anything else because you haven't seen the new set. If Anarch set is Group 4 then there will > be only 150 vampires in the 3-4 grouping making it a less viable choice for > purposes of choosing from the largest selection. Now, from what we have seen > in the preview, the vampires in group 3 are designed using a different pool / > discipline / ability formula than the vamps in Group 1. Thank God for that. Big Vampires blew lap monkey in Jyhad and VTES. This being so, group > 2-3 is a better choice for deck construction where someone wants the "best" > vampires. It already is. There are very few Mono-Jyhado (TM) decks that are competitive. Not because they have inferior vampires, but because generally they were poor at combat and combat is a huge moderating factor in the playgroups that I have seen. These two influences of vamps in a set - number of vamps and quality > of vamps - will effect the balance of crypt building for as long as this games > continues to exist - and already (although the set is not out yet) it seems > that group 2-3 will be a better choice for crypt construction than group 1-2. > Why do I want to continue playing with my Group 1 vamps? Because Tura Vaun has > big breasts, that's why! I just wanted to say that is probably the best reason to play with group one vampires. They are expensive, pool-wise, and have better substitutes in group 2. <snip background change except for> This is a marketing ploy to > "encourage" purchasing of the new set by "outdating" the original cards. No, it is to encourage easier play with the new cards. I think that the new design is more intuitive. Maybe you don't. We will see. Cards made in later sets were balanced against the > existing cards. (catatonic fear looked at Majesty to see how to be designed) A > Staple card at the top of the curve sets where the top of the curve is. Yet they didn't change any of the staple cards from VTES until Cam Ed..They used all the reprint expansions to update cards from those expansions. It makes sense. Think about it. Now, I > am supposed to do what, paint a blood symbol on all of my majestys??? Are you artistically inclined? I am, and even I wouldn't do that. I would instead just remember that they cost a blood now. I do the same thing with my Aquired Ventrue Assets. I remember that they don't cost any pool. I think you are supposed to use your head for something other than a hat rack. You should be able to remember this. As a general rule, if you play with the card then you should know the most recent printing and any errata associated with that card. You are internet savvy. It isn't that hard. What if > they change it again - do I scrape the paint off? Again, this makes the new > cards more playable than the old cards. The new cards should always be more easily played than the old cards. This is a good thing. This shows that the parent company is looking at what works and what doesn't. If they think something doesn't work then they change it to something that they think will work. I would congradulate them on trying to be in touch with their player base. > >Save everyone the bother please, and come to a conclusions about the new set > and stick with it. Then, after coming to that conclusion, act on it. Don't dick > around here anymore. Do something constructive. If you think you're here to > recruit people to your !CE clause fine... but know that you'll get flamed for > it, or something. Why? This is a VTES newsgroup. We talk about VTES, because we > like it. Those who don't are allowed their say, but are generally encouraged to > say it and then stop whining and come to a conclusion and/or leave quietly. > > > >Do so. Now. I actually don't think he can in an intellegent way. Not because he isn't intellegent, but because he has very little to base his arguement on. He hasn't seen the new set in its entirety, nor has he played with it. It is a little premature to start screaming about it. > I will deliver my final rant upon the release of CE. Until that time I am > attempting (feebly) to get a product recall and redesign. Oh come on! This is laughable. You haven't seen the new set in its entirety, nor have you played with it. How can you ask for a product recall before the product has been released? You can't recall something until it has been released. That is a paradoxical statement. Don't believe the hype! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Awazzzz wrote: > explain: Assuming that there will be groups above number 3 - and LSJ has said > that the 3 implies that there will be groups above 3 - there will be different While there is obviously nothing to restrict groups to the <= 3 range, I have said nothing about the 3 implying that there will be groups in the > 3 range. Citation for your claim to the contrary, please? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> I have stopped playing - which is really sad because this was my favorite game. > I have stopped playing because my cards have all been wallpapered (or are now > destined to be in the future.) Wow, every single card? All of them? And here I was under the impression that just the overpowered ones had been toned down. > 1: Crypt restrictions: > Now of course people say that the supposed reason behind the new crypt > restrictions is an issue of balance to prevent the "ubercrypt" - not a > marketing technique - and while I think otherwise, I am happy to use that > assumption during this thread. I had the same initial reaction as you. I didn't like it one bit. But after thinking about it and looking through my own cards I realized that, yes, it was needed. > For instance, Blythe was printed overpowered and had to be > erratted. Actually from what I remember she was printed wrong and errated. She was intended to has basic auspex in the first place. [snip more example] I can see how you can be upset about not being able to mix your old favorites with the new vamps, but do you honestly believe that this new crop is where "phasing" out of the Jyhad/V:TES print vamps has started? Think back to DS, the creation of more powerful vamps had started even then. And then when Sabbat hit the shelves, the Jyhad vamps barely saw play any more in anything other than Prince decks. I can search through my half a dozen + decks and find only a handfull of vampires from the original set that I still use. They have been phased out for a long time now. > 2. Card Design. The new cards have a complete new look that includes changing > symbols, moving symbols, changing backgrounds, etc. I didn't like it either, but the colors and whatnot are not important to me. > If a player is playing a deck with 4 clans in it, it > will be difficult for other players to know which vamp is from what clan. Yeah, for like 3 games maybe. Then everyone will get used to the new look and remember it. I hardly see this as a major problem as long as your are not playing with the guy from the movie Momento. > While the backs of the cards are the same, using the new cards with the old > cards is difficult playing. When the cards are in my hand, I fan them and can > see the title to know what card it is - now I will have to fan some of them > farther or all I will see is a green bar. This is a marketing ploy to > "encourage" purchasing of the new set by "outdating" the original cards. This is about the weakest argument I have ever seen. Honestly the title of the card is like a few milimeters to the right. Gosh, I'd really hate to see you go out of your way there. > 3. Rewording, Recosting, Rebalancing cards. This has been going on for years > now, Exactly. This isn't some new contrivance. It is old hat. > Cards made in later sets were balanced against the existing cards. Actually no. Cards are ballanced to themselves. The effect of the card is weighed against its cost and requirements to play, if the effect is found to be too powerful, often times the card's cost is increased or the effect is lessened. The fact that another card exists that does something similar is not the main factor. > Now, I am supposed to do what, paint a blood symbol on all of my majestys??? >What if they change it again - do I scrape the paint off? Again, this makes the new > cards more playable than the old cards. Again, unless you are brain dead, and I can tell that you are not, you will know that the card has changed and you will remember it. And besides, you do play with a group of people at the table don't you? If you don't know the latest printing of a card, just ask. > I will deliver my final rant upon the release of CE. Until that time I am > attempting (feebly) to get a product recall and redesign. Not likely to happen. You may be justified in not liking some of the changes. Heck, I don't like some of the changes....but a recall?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D427A1B...@white-wolf.com... > Awazzzz wrote: > > explain: Assuming that there will be groups above number 3 - and LSJ has said > > that the 3 implies that there will be groups above 3 - there will be different > > While there is obviously nothing to restrict groups to the <= 3 range, I have > said nothing about the 3 implying that there will be groups in the > 3 range. > > Citation for your claim to the contrary, please? Is there any way you can give us more info on the grouping rule? Are there plans for a 4? It's obvious that if there is a 1, 2, and 3 that there COULD be a 4. What made you decide to group things this way? Why is group 1 so small? It sounds almost like its the original Jyhad/VTES set that is screwing up the balance? And all future cards will be useable together(ie only group 3) Will there ever be cards printed with old group numbers? Like could a new set come out as grouping 1? Any insight into the grouping rule? Other then that it keeps camarilla from being over powered? If not I don't see why you should expect people to assume anything but the worst. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"The Bard of Crete" tlo...@satx.rr.com wrote in message: Date: 7/27/02 Message-id: <Z9B09.215479$q53.5...@twister.austin.rr.com> >> I have stopped playing because my cards have all been wallpapered (or are >now >> destined to be in the future.) > >Wow, every single card? All of them? And here I was under the impression >that just the overpowered ones had been toned down. Toning down cards is not the only way to wallpapaer one. The 3 discussed changes wallpaper cards - because the new cards are more desirable for play and do not "go with" the old cards. >> 1: Crypt restrictions: >> For instance, Blythe was printed overpowered and had to be >> erratted. > >Actually from what I remember she was printed wrong and errated. She was >intended to has basic auspex in the first place. Yes, she was printed wrong - she was printed overpowered - see above >[snip more example] > >I can see how you can be upset about not being able to mix your old >favorites with the new vamps, but do you honestly believe that this new crop >is where "phasing" out of the Jyhad/V:TES print vamps has started? Think >back to DS, the creation of more powerful vamps had started even then. And >then when Sabbat hit the shelves, the Jyhad vamps barely saw play any more >in anything other than Prince decks. I can search through my half a dozen + >decks and find only a handfull of vampires from the original set that I >still use. They have been phased out for a long time now. DS & AH still went with the old system - AH Settites are at a low cost/discipline/ability when compared to the FN Settites. I also think that Cam decks have always been viable against the Sabat and I also like playing the Sects together - Tor/!TorAnt. It helps me build my "ubercrypts" >> 2. Card Design. The new cards have a complete new look that includes >changing >> symbols, moving symbols, changing backgrounds, etc. >> If a player is playing a deck with 4 clans in it, it >> will be difficult for other players to know which vamp is from what clan. > >Yeah, for like 3 games maybe. Then everyone will get used to the new look >and remember it. I hardly see this as a major problem as long as your are >not playing with the guy from the movie Momento. The new look is fine by itself but when mixed with the old cards, the only way to tell clans apart is by the clan symbol, which isn't even on the same place on the card. When group 4 comes out, it will pobably have a new look as well - I would rather be able to tell clans apart during play than groupings. >> 3. Rewording, Recosting, Rebalancing cards. This has been going on for >years >> now, > >Exactly. This isn't some new contrivance. It is old hat. V:TES has been going on since 1994. One of the first major rewrites happened on 7/7 of 1996 (But there were previous occurances with Rotschreck). 8 years is a long time to go with no fix. If a card hasn't been broken for all those years, why is it broken now? There have been only a handful of broken cards printed in the game (Fame, RTI, TOR3, etc.) I actually am somewhat happy with the idea of fixing ToGP, but, in my opinion, I would have preffered a fix with a sliding pool cost based on the vamp's capacity (1/2X). However, I feel that the "rules team" is way too trigger happy with rewrites - I think they are doing it to "outdate" the older cards. >> Cards made in later sets were balanced against the existing cards. > >Actually no. Cards are ballanced to themselves. The effect of the card is >weighed against its cost and requirements to play, if the effect is found to >be too powerful, often times the card's cost is increased or the effect is >lessened. The fact that another card exists that does something similar is >not the main factor. The Fortitude effect - "prevent all damage from opposing minion's strike." costs 1 blood. When the first set was made - it determined this by printing the card Skin of Steel. This set the precedence for the effect costing 1 blood. I assume that the designers felt that Skin of Steel should be a higher cost card than Majesty because it did not take up a strike. I am assuming this because I don't know any of the designers personally or anything; but for some reason they did design Skin of Steel as a higher cost card than Majesty. This sets the balance curve for the game - "prevent all damage from strike" = 1 blood - "S:CE" = free. Once the curve is set, anything outside the set is underpowered or broken. A card that sets where the curve is cannot be outside of the curve and therefore cannot be broken. The curve has been set for 8 years now, and while some cards from the original set were broken by stepping out of the curve set by the other cards, the rest of them form the curve. > cards more playable than the old cards. > >Again, unless you are brain dead, and I can tell that you are not, you will >know that the card has changed and you will remember it. And besides, you >do play with a group of people at the table don't you? If you don't know >the latest printing of a card, just ask. What am I supposed to do - take their word for it? When changes happen, not everyone fully understand them and their implications. For instance, I just got an Internet Service Provider and computer 2 months ago. I have been playing V:TES for 8 years. Does everone need an ISP to be able to play V:TES?

LSJ, "Scott" Wrote in Message-id: <3D427A1B...@white-wolf.com> > >Awazzzz wrote: >> explain: Assuming that there will be groups above number 3 - and LSJ has >said >> that the 3 implies that there will be groups above 3 - there will be >different > >While there is obviously nothing to restrict groups to the <= 3 range, I have >said nothing about the 3 implying that there will be groups in the > 3 range. > >Citation for your claim to the contrary, please? > I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you before, but the post that I am reffering to is: LSJ message news:<3D24BF20...@white-wolf.com>... Where you said: The whole point of the group rule is to provide a foundation for future expansions, so the idea of 4+ is inherent in there. The current Camarilla counts should give a rough idea of what the mix methodology is. (But that isn't set in stone). Did I get it right?

> > I will deliver my final rant upon the release of CE. Until that time I am > attempting (feebly) to get a product recall and redesign. If this had been an EQ board this guy had been one of those crying "Nerf!"... Funny

>If this had been an EQ board this guy had been one of those crying "Nerf!"... "Nerf!! Nerf!!! Damnit I said NERF!!!!!!!"

Archon of the Swamp - "XZealot" x_ze...@bellsouth.net wrote in Message-id: <Hwp09.23771$Og3.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> > Group 1 has about 100 vamps in it; group 2 has between >> 200-300 vamps in it, and so far Group 3 has 100 vamps in it. >Group 1 had 112 vampires. >Group 2 has 372 vampires. which means that group 1 is only 23% of the >availible vampires. (112/372+112=.2316) Hey, thanks man, I really did not want to count the vamps. However, group 3 has 100 vamps in it which makes group one only equal to 19% of total vamps. >True, but I am willing to bet serious cash that it (Anarch Revolt set) will be group 3. > > If it group 3 then the >> group 2-3 grouping will have more vampires than group 1-2 - making group >1-2 >> less viable for deck construction. > >Only based upon raw numbers of vampires, you cannot base it on anything else >because you haven't seen the new set. And by the time I do, it will be too late to prevent it. >Thank God for that.(changing vamp formulas) Big Vampires blew lap monkey in Jyhad and VTES. Then why would playing with them give me an unbalanced advantage? Do lap monkey vamps create an "ubercrypt?" >This being so, group >> 2-3 is a better choice for deck construction where someone wants the >"best" >> vampires. > >It already is. There are very few Mono-Jyhado (TM) decks that are >competitive. Not because they have inferior vampires, but because generally >they were poor at combat and combat is a huge moderating factor in the >playgroups that I have seen. Combat is not the only winning deck archetype. >> Why do I want to continue playing with my Group 1 vamps? Because Tura >Vaun has >> big breasts, that's why! > >I just wanted to say that is probably the best reason to play with group one >vampires. They are expensive, pool-wise, and have better substitutes in >group 2. Perhaps we should add to Tura's pool cost to balance her with the smaller breasted vampires (joke) ><snip background change except for> > This is a marketing ploy to >> "encourage" purchasing of the new set by "outdating" the original cards. > >No, it is to encourage easier play with the new cards. I think that the new >design is more intuitive. Maybe you don't. We will see. I think subtle design changes are good - adding the symbol bar has its advantages - I like the way the set symbol in SW, FN, BL, CE are all variations of the ankh - cool. I like the recent font increase - I like the new symbol for pool cost (it was confusing before, but I wish that the pool / blood symbol placement added up to the old cards so I could still use them for teaching and the like) However, changing the backgrounds is nothing but poor. And the fact that the largest symbol on the card (the set symbol) is the only one that you do not use during game play is outright dumb. >Cards made in later sets were balanced against the >Yet they didn't change any of the staple cards from VTES until Cam Ed..They >used all the reprint expansions to update cards from those expansions. It >makes sense. Think about it. Reprinting a rewrite is better than a erratta rewrite - sure. But the point is that staple cards should not be rewritten and new cards shoulld be designed balanced so that rewriting is unnesscessary. >Now, I >> am supposed to do what, paint a blood symbol on all of my majestys??? > >Are you artistically inclined? I am, and even I wouldn't do that. I would >instead just remember that they cost a blood now. I do the same thing with >my Aquired Ventrue Assets. I remember that they don't cost any pool. If someone played AVA against me, I would have no idea what it is supposed to cost. this is one of the many cards that I do not see enough in game play to memorize. I'm sure I could look up a card on the internet (access providing) eveytime my opponent played one, but this would slow down play to run over the time limit. >I think you are supposed to use your head for something other than a hat >rack. You should be able to remember this. As a general rule, if you play >with the card then you should know the most recent printing and any errata >associated with that card. You are internet savvy. It isn't that hard. I don't feel that internet savvyness should be a factor in how good someone is at V:TES. >What if >> they change it again - do I scrape the paint off? Again, this makes the >new >> cards more playable than the old cards. > >The new cards should always be more easily played than the old cards. This >is a good thing. This shows that the parent company is looking at what >works and what doesn't. If they think something doesn't work then they >change it to something that they think will work. I would congradulate them >on trying to be in touch with their player base. I have been playing this game for many years - what doesn't work? >Oh come on! This is laughable. You haven't seen the new set in its >entirety, nor have you played with it. How can you ask for a product recall >before the product has been released? You can't recall something until it >has been released. That is a paradoxical statement. Well, production could be halted, the set could be revoked before release, I don't think WW it very keen on this idea, but I think that releasing this set would have more disastrous results than a pre-release recall. V:TES has never been a popular game (when compared to MTG, Pokemon, 7 Sea, L5R, Yu-Gi-Oh) and hasn't had their sales numbers. Who is going to teach the new players when enough of us "diehards" have quit?

>However, YOU might be missing the point also. If you don't like the >game, if you don't like forming new nueral pathways, and if you think >that rules lawyers are the ones that will win this game the most (I >disagree, being a big time rules lawyer, and losing often, and I've >also seen people win often, who aren't rules lawyers), and if those >things bother you then stop playing. [BITTER] Being a rules lawyer just means that no one listens to you when you're right and that you end up saying "I told you so" a whole of the time... [/BITTER] >Eliminate stress from your life Awazzzz. Stop complaining about >something you can't change. But...isn't it therapeutic at times? =) >This is a >VTES newsgroup. We talk about VTES, because we like it. Except for Andrew (and a few other people who will remain nameless) of course... >Those who >don't are allowed their say, but are generally encouraged to say it >and then stop whining and come to a conclusion and/or leave quietly. > >Do so. Now. Here here! I second the motion. Can't believe it but I'm actually *agreeing* with Alex for once... Halcyan 2 disagreeably agreeing (Okay I'll be the first to admit it. I'm not half as good with these little thingies as Josh!)

Awazzzz wrote: > I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you before, but the post that I am reffering > to is: > > LSJ message news:<3D24BF20...@white-wolf.com>... > > Where you said: > > The whole point of the group rule is to provide a foundation for future > expansions, so the idea of 4+ is inherent in there. The current Camarilla > counts should give a rough idea of what the mix methodology is. (But that isn't > set in stone). > > Did I get it right? Looks good. Thanks for digging that up. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com>, vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >Posting here, arguing with James or any of the other 'regulars' >isn't going to get you anywhere except deeper into annoyance. From my point of view, this isn't true in the slightest. Posturing with soundbites again and again, without providing proof, will probably generate this. There are, however, many people with whom I regularly end up on different sides of discussions and debates (or with whom I have done so in the past) whom I don't regard as annoying in the slightest. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D you say one or two amusing things, but so EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 did Herman Goering (does that sidestep Godwin?) 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20020729004715...@mb-fm.aol.com>... > >Eliminate stress from your life Awazzzz. Stop complaining about > >something you can't change. > > But...isn't it therapeutic at times? =) Theraputic complaining: Here I went through the trouble of plonking this dismal whiner Awazzzz, but I still have to plow through all the replies he generates. Time to see if I can killfile any message that even has his name in it.

> Hey, thanks man, I really did not want to count the vamps. However, group 3 > has 100 vamps in it which makes group one only equal to 19% of total vamps. No prob. > >Only based upon raw numbers of vampires, you cannot base it on anything else > >because you haven't seen the new set. > > And by the time I do, it will be too late to prevent it. How exactly do you plan on preventing it? > >Thank God for that.(changing vamp formulas) Big Vampires blew lap monkey in > Jyhad and VTES. > > Then why would playing with them give me an unbalanced advantage? Do lap > monkey vamps create an "ubercrypt?" No, but six caitiff will definantly throw a wrench in it. Especially if any of their disciplines match up with the disciplines from the Caitiff in the Anarchs set. Also it keeps you having to double up on certain key vampires (Emerson Bridges for the Ventrue Law Firm, Gilbert Duane for Malkavian Bloat and Bleed) which lowers the overall effectiveness of the deck. > >This being so, group > >> 2-3 is a better choice for deck construction where someone wants the > >"best" > >> vampires. > > > >It already is. There are very few Mono-Jyhado (TM) decks that are > >competitive. Not because they have inferior vampires, but because generally > >they were poor at combat and combat is a huge moderating factor in the > >playgroups that I have seen. > > Combat is not the only winning deck archetype. Show me a soley Jyhad deck that has won lately in a tournament and we will argue the merits of Jyhad vampires. Other than that I honestly believe that most of the small "filler" vampires will be reprinted under other names with the exception of the Caitiff. <snip good points we agree on> However, changing the backgrounds is nothing but poor. And the fact > that the largest symbol on the card (the set symbol) is the only one that you > do not use during game play is outright dumb. I can agree with you on this points. I also do not see the point of changing the backgrouds, nor do I like the oversized set symbol. I am not quitting the game over it. I will just have to deal with it, the same way I had to deal with Jeff Thompson whipping my formerly, tournament-winning, Jyhad-only Bloat deck at my second tournament with his !Tor intercept-hand shrinking deck. It was an unhappy process. > >Cards made in later sets were balanced against the > > >Yet they didn't change any of the staple cards from VTES until Cam Ed..They > >used all the reprint expansions to update cards from those expansions. It > >makes sense. Think about it. > > Reprinting a rewrite is better than a erratta rewrite - sure. But the point is > that staple cards should not be rewritten and new cards shoulld be designed > balanced so that rewriting is unnesscessary. Here are the entirity of the rewrites 1)Al's Army Apparatus: only usable during your minion phase. This doesn't really affect this card so much as it reduces its ability as a cycling mechanism. 2)Aura Reading: superior is +2 hand size. It can be played at superior only once each combat. I never really saw mutiples of these being thrown down. 3)Blood Puppy: costs 2 pool. This definantly lowers the cost of this wallpaper to the point that it might be playable. 4)Blood Rage/Fury, Cauldron of Blood: do damage based on the striker's strength (and are therefore hand strikes) Sweet! Now IG doesn't hose the Tremere (of course that assumes that the Tremere are actually playing with these cards) 5)Bureacratic Overload: increases the cost of political actions Yeah! Now a political counter that doesn't actually require a Malkavian. 6)Catatonic Fear: costs 1 blood. Yeah! S:CE at inferior is no longer free. 7)Concealed Weapon: no discipline req., weapon cannot be unique, deal agg damage, cost more than 2 pool, or deal more than 3 damage (with a standard strike). Yeah! Unwallpapers a card. 8)Day Operation: Only vampires are restricted from blocking. Yeah! Makes allies more useful. 9)Delaying Tactics: costs 1 blood. Yeah! no more opponents packing 8 free DT's in their weenie Anarch Revolt deck. 10)Derange: requires a Malk or Malk antitribu. Is placed on a younger vampire (using the former superior Dementation effect). I hate this card, but at least it is more useable and less corner-case. 11)Drain Essence: costs 1 blood. Yeah, They finally balanced this card. 12)Dramatic Upheaval: Change places with another Methuselah (not with yourself). No real effect here. 13)Embrace: doesn't receive a discipline card during action resolution. Yeah! Mono-discipline weenie embrace decks get hosed. 14)Fear of Mekhet: can be moved to a justicar Seems reasonable. 15)Fifth Tradition: cannot target the acting vampire. Blood gain is limited to 4 blood. This is probably the biggest change in the set. I for one do not miss its passing. 16)Forest of Shadows: costs 1 pool. Fine, Stealth for Malkavians 17)Ghoul Retainer: cannot use a weapon used by another retainer. Has 1 strength. This is intuitive and good 18 )Graverobbing: targets another Methuselah's vampire This makes sense. 19)Hostile Takeover: target must have capacity less than 7. Good, no more Gideon Fontain hostile takeovers your Etrius or Democritus or Wynn. 20)Illegal Search and Seizure: can also burn a weapon that does any amount of agg damage. That makes sense. "Oh no officers you can't take my improvised flamethrower, I have rights." 21)Island of Yiaros: no inherent burn option. Good, arsons are still fairly common. 22)Judgment: Camarilla Segregation: Methuselah can burn a vampire during the master phase, not the minion phase. Keeps diablerists from being burned to get rid of this card before a bloodhunt passes. 23)Kindred Segregation: only pool costs (not blood costs) need to be repaid. This is an interesting twist which increases the power of Shambling Hordes decks, but also reduces some confusion about who should pay the blood costs. 24)Louvre, Paris: no cost I still don't think that this unwallpapers this card. 25)Majesty: costs 1 blood (no additional cost for superior). Yeah! S:CE at inferior is no longer free. 26)Marcellus: Political actions cost Nosferatu an extra blood. Even better, now that costs them up front 27)Monocle of Clarity: answers about the future are not binding Good, no more self contradicting 50 clause questions. 28)Oxford University: no cost, X pool for X votes, no inherent burn option. Good, but still not great. 29)Patagia: Allows the vampire to burn a blood to temporarily gain flight. Cool, although I kind of liked my maneuver. 30)Powerbase: Berlin: No cost. Doesn't burn if the controller has no Ventrue. Good, but still not great. 31)Powerbase: Washington, D.C.: Can move 2 blood back (instead of 1) during your untap phase. Awesome! 32)Protracted Investment: costs 2 pool, gets 5 counters This may improve its usage. It certainly increased its profitabilty %, but still not to the point of Short Term Investment. 33)Psychic Projection: is put in play. Good. 34)Rowan Ring: sends opposing vampire to torpor with the ring as a strike. Unbans the cards. Good. 35)Second Tradition: the effect costs 1 blood when used by a tapped vampire. Gives it parity with Eternal Vigilence. 36)Succubus Club: only one trade per untap phase. Tap to trade. I still think this card should be banned. 37)Taste of Vitae: play at end of round. Only 1. This really only affect Celerity vampires. 38)Temptation of Greater Power: only 1 can be played in a game. That is a relief. 39)Tremere Convocation: no cost. unique. Good. 40)Wasserschloss Anif, Austria: no cost. Sweet. 41)Weather Control: only one each combat. Good, this prevents the Ben Peal 60 weather control "we both go to torpor" weenie Thaumaturgy decks. > If someone played AVA against me, I would have no idea what it is supposed to > cost. this is one of the many cards that I do not see enough in game play to > memorize. I'm sure I could look up a card on the internet (access providing) > eveytime my opponent played one, but this would slow down play to run over the > time limit. I imagine that after seeing it played a few times you might remember. Also, the next time that you didn't believe someone about the cost, I would expect them to bring a copy of the Card Text Migrations or at least go through their deck and find a copy of the one from Final Nights. > I don't feel that internet savvyness should be a factor in how good someone is > at V:TES. Unfortunantly, knowing the rules about the cards is part of the game. If a card has been changed, then players should know about it. Princes should definantly be up to date, even if no one else is. > I have been playing this game for many years - what doesn't work? Everything works but as you can see above, they have done some tinkering to improve the game. > Well, production could be halted, the set could be revoked before release, I > don't think WW it very keen on this idea, but I think that releasing this set > would have more disastrous results than a pre-release recall. Do you know how disastrous recalls are? Do you know how expensive they are? Can you say "Total Loss"? I imagine that if they did what you said then the losses would be so great that they would never support the game again. Now, we are back to square one where we were when WOC stopped supporting the game. V:TES has never > been a popular game (when compared to MTG, Pokemon, 7 Sea, L5R, Yu-Gi-Oh) and > hasn't had their sales numbers. Who is going to teach the new players when > enough of us "diehards" have quit? I imagine that if they keep improving the game that it will be intuitive enought that it won't require us "diehards" to keep it alive. [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20020729004715...@mb-fm.aol.com>... > Here here! I second the motion. Can't believe it but I'm actually *agreeing* > with Alex for once... Who's Alex, and why are you disagreeing with him? > Halcyan 2 > > disagreeably agreeing > (Okay I'll be the first to admit it. I'm not half as good with these little > thingies as Josh!) BTW. Who the fvck are you? :) ~SV

In message <mOc19.72483$Og3.16...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: >Here are the entirity of the rewrites > >1)Al's Army Apparatus: only usable during your minion phase. > >This doesn't really affect this card so much as it reduces its ability as a >cycling mechanism. It's fine, to be honest. >2)Aura Reading: superior is +2 hand size. It can be played at superior only >once each combat. > >I never really saw mutiples of these being thrown down. It's not really a significant re-write. The old version set the size to 9. Adding two to the hand size, but limiting it to one per combat, stops cycling (very minor) but makes it easier to work out what goes when, say, Jan Pieterzoon or Elder Library is out. What adds where, before or after the set to nine? >3)Blood Puppy: costs 2 pool. > >This definantly lowers the cost of this wallpaper to the point that it might >be playable. Still not sure. Might be usable, maybe. >4)Blood Rage/Fury, Cauldron of Blood: do damage based on the striker's >strength (and are therefore hand strikes) > >Sweet! Now IG doesn't hose the Tremere (of course that assumes that the >Tremere are actually playing with these cards) Jyhad definitely didn't predict Majesty being played enough. And, in weirdness, it's probably Majesty that makes this necessary. Majesty upped the need for Immortal Grapple. Immortal Grapple knocks out all other combat. Less than fun. >5)Bureacratic Overload: increases the cost of political actions > >Yeah! Now a political counter that doesn't actually require a Malkavian. It makes it slightly better and slightly easier to handle, too. We all know when costs happen. >24)Louvre, Paris: no cost > >I still don't think that this unwallpapers this card. Depends. >27)Monocle of Clarity: answers about the future are not binding > >Good, no more self contradicting 50 clause questions. Well, you can still have them. They're just not useful. >29)Patagia: Allows the vampire to burn a blood to temporarily gain flight. > >Cool, although I kind of liked my maneuver. This is in *addition* to the maneuver. [ quoted text not captured ]

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com>... > Awa...@aol.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<a8b0e61c.0207...@posting.google.com>... > > <snip crap> <and snip my food> My apologies everyone... I just realized that what I did could be considered feeding the troll... I shall now repent... ~SV

XZealot wrote: > 37)Taste of Vitae: play at end of round. Only 1. > > This really only affect Celerity vampires. Actually this affects those on the receiving end of a Celerity vamp more than the Celerity vamp itself. No more taking a snack in the middle of a round in order to prevent going to torpor after the additional strikes. Still a good change, and I like my Toreador :) Sten During

> Actually this affects those on the receiving end of a Celerity vamp > more than the Celerity vamp itself. No more taking a snack in the > middle of a round in order to prevent going to torpor after the > additional strikes. > > Still a good change, and I like my Toreador :) I see this is true as well, but generally I see it when Volker is reduced to zero blood, then he plays a Taste and a Blur. I am glad this crap is gone. [ quoted text not captured ]

I had to go back a couple days to find a post that really pissed me off. However, I knew that awazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wouldn't disappoint me. awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote: > Archon of the Swamp - "XZealot" x_ze...@bellsouth.net wrote in Message-id: > <Hwp09.23771$Og3.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> > >Only based upon raw numbers of vampires, you cannot base it on anything else > >because you haven't seen the new set. > > And by the time I do, it will be too late to prevent it. As Norman pointed out, how do you propose to prevent it? Stand in front of the distributors' trucks with your little picket sign? Letter to your Congressman? Burn yourself in effigy? (Feel free to try this one) > >It already is. There are very few Mono-Jyhado (TM) decks that are > >competitive. Not because they have inferior vampires, but because generally > >they were poor at combat and combat is a huge moderating factor in the > >playgroups that I have seen. > > Combat is not the only winning deck archetype. Do you have problems following the bouncing ball because you were dropped on your head as a child or because you were hit by a van? At no point did Norman state or infer that combat is the only winning archetype. Anyone making such a ridiculous claim would be laughed at. > >Yet they didn't change any of the staple cards from VTES until Cam Ed..They > >used all the reprint expansions to update cards from those expansions. It > >makes sense. Think about it. > > Reprinting a rewrite is better than a erratta rewrite - sure. But the point is > that staple cards should not be rewritten and new cards shoulld be designed > balanced so that rewriting is unnesscessary. If those staple cards have, over time, lent themselves to a game unbalancing effect, then absolutely they should be reworked. Your idea to raise the power of the new cards,would cause an effect similar to an arms race. By changing old cards, you force people to change their old decks, preventing stagnation in a game that can ill afford it. > I don't feel that internet savvyness should be a factor in how good someone is > at V:TES. True. But the rulebook does point one to White Wolf's web site, which lists all the current rules and card texts. Barring that, buy new cards! The most recent printings have (for the most part) up to date texts. What more do you want WW to do to keep you whiners up to date? Infomercial? Billboards? Super Bowl ad? > >Oh come on! This is laughable. You haven't seen the new set in its > >entirety, nor have you played with it. How can you ask for a product recall > >before the product has been released? You can't recall something until it > >has been released. That is a paradoxical statement. > > Well, production could be halted, the set could be revoked before release, I > don't think WW it very keen on this idea, but I think that releasing this set > would have more disastrous results than a pre-release recall. V:TES has never > been a popular game (when compared to MTG, Pokemon, 7 Sea, L5R, Yu-Gi-Oh) and > hasn't had their sales numbers. Who is going to teach the new players when > enough of us "diehards" have quit? Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick! What a fucking idiotic statement to make! First, why the fuck would White Wolf halt production and revoke the set? Because a handful of people are having a hissy fit? Brother, please. This set is not going to be "disastrous" because you are unhappy. People will still buy the game. In fact, I'll bet money that WW will sell out their first printing in less than a month after the release date. Finally, which diehards are quitting? Sorrow and you? That's it. If Peter, Derek, Lasombra, Legbiter, Dave and Robyn Tatu, James Coupe, etc. all quit in disgust, I'd be concerned. I am sad to see Sorrow, a fellow NJL guy, leave...but you? Who in the blue hell are you? Some guy who claims that he was responsible for some post-7/7 compromise? *snort* Whatever, dude. Tell you what. You said you stopped playing the game. How about you and all the rest of you jackasses claiming to quit the game, but still yammering on and on, just shut the fuck up and talk with your walllet like a good little consumer whore. Sheesh, Noal

Archon Wrote in Message: <mOc19.72483$Og3.16...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> >No, but six caitiff will definantly throw a wrench in it. Especially if any >of their disciplines match up with the disciplines from the Caitiff in the >Anarchs set. Also it keeps you having to double up on certain key vampires >(Emerson Bridges for the Ventrue Law Firm, Gilbert Duane for Malkavian Bloat >and Bleed) which lowers the overall effectiveness of the deck. Why do you like having to double up on vamps? You cannot have two of the same vamp in play! How is having 100 one cap vamps any worse than having 15? >Show me a soley Jyhad deck that has won lately in a tournament and we will >argue the merits of Jyhad vampires Until now, I have not had to build crypts based upon expansion. Hypothetically the entire 1-2 group will be outdated and outpowered by newer vamps - a deck with soley 1-2 group vamps will not be winning tournamnets either. The same could hold true for group 2-3. Jyhad vamps are now meritless and the rest of the ones I own (group 2) will eventually be equally as mertiless. >Here are the entirity of the rewrites Wow another 26 cards!! How many rewritten cards are there in the game? > >Do you know how disastrous recalls are? Do you know how expensive they are? >Can you say "Total Loss"? I imagine that if they did what you said then the >losses would be so great that they would never support the game again. Now, >we are back to square one where we were when WOC stopped supporting the >game. Oh, I know the implications of how disasterous a recall is. Eating a product is not fun. But when a card set is a screwed as CE is - a loss will be taken somewhere. Business is nothing new to me - I have worked at many of them. I used to be a Finisher at printing companies (someone who cuts and folds the paper and cardstock into the finished product) Now, let's say I was cutting the cards from CE - and I accidentially cut them 1mm short on each side. Now WW would not accept these cards and demand a reprint - causing the printing company to eat a loss and me to be instantly terminated. This is the nature of the cruel world of business. The problems of CE are as equally bad as miscutting. With mis cut cards - I can not use them with my other cards and with CE I am equally restricted from using it with my other cards. Sure, I COULD use miscut cards using cardsleeves - but this is problematic for shuffling. I reject CE and demand that it be redone correctly - so that it does not outdate my current collecetion. Today I went to 7-11 to buy some Q-tips, a pack of smokes, and a snack. 7-11 did not have any Q-tips and so I went across the street to Conoco to make my purchase. Okay, I'm sure that my $8.27 is not going to kill the 7-11 corp - but it is $8.27 that went to the competition. There are other games out there that do not have such problems, and while they are certainly not as cool as VTES, they do not do things like wallpaper my collection. I reject CE and demand that it be done correctly.

Noal wrote in message: ><bb705c59.02073...@posting.google.com> >I had to go back a couple days to find a post that really pissed me >off. >However, I knew that awazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wouldn't disappoint >me. > Glad I didn't let you down - did you enjoy your coffee? >As Norman pointed out, how do you propose to prevent it? Stand in >front of the >distributors' trucks with your little picket sign? Letter to your >Congressman? Burn >yourself in effigy? (Feel free to try this one) I am not going to but the cards and am encouraging others not to buy them. >If those staple cards have, over time, lent themselves to a game >unbalancing >effect, then absolutely they should be reworked. Your idea to raise >the power >of the new cards,would cause an effect similar to an arms race. By >changing >old cards, you force people to change their old decks, preventing >stagnation >in a game that can ill afford it. Staple cards define the balance curve. New cards should be designed to fit within that curve. The new cards are then themselves staple cards. >In fact, I'll >bet money that WW will sell out their first printing in less than a >month after the release >date. I'm willing to take that bet. How much do you want to go for? I am willing to make a handshake bet or all the way up to US$50. >Tell you what. You said you stopped playing the game. How about you >and all the rest of >you jackasses claiming to quit the game, but still yammering on and >on, just shut the >fuck up and talk with your walllet like a good little consumer whore. Quitting the game and quitting yammering are two different thing entirely. I have spent enough on this game that I feel I own a little bit of it. After all isn't buying anything that you don't consume an investment?

Awazzzz wrote: > Until now, I have not had to build crypts based upon expansion. > Hypothetically > the entire 1-2 group will be outdated and outpowered by newer vamps - a deck > with soley 1-2 group vamps will not be winning tournamnets either. The same > could hold true for group 2-3. Jyhad vamps are now meritless and the rest of > the ones I own (group 2) will eventually be equally as mertiless. This statement is based on, umm, what exactly? Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "Grr! Release the Monkey!" -Zim

>vermil...@yahoo.com wrote in message ><f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com>.. >My apologies everyone... I just realized that what I did could be >considered feeding the troll... I am not defaming the newsgroup. I am not defaming VTES. I am ostenibly opposed to one of the nine sets of the game... But I am a troll. I would rather be a troll anyday than a sheep!! Would you prefer a newsgroup of people who blindly followed ant staus quo that was thrown at them? I'm sorry, but I don't think that would lead to very interesting conversations. Should we have two newsgroups - rec.games.pussywhipsheep and rec.games.trollingbitchslap? (Joke) No!! I have spent enough time, money, and energy on this game where I will not sit idly by while it gets ruined.

In message <20020730162719...@mb-fg.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >but it is $8.27 that went to the competition. There are other games out there >that do not have such problems, and while they are certainly not as cool as >VTES, they do not do things like wallpaper my collection. I reject CE and >demand that it be done correctly. Your demand is laughable and ridiculous on its face. You are incapable of responding coherently to arguments; instead, you respond with hyperbole, hand-waving, and inaccurate facts, as well as foolish insubstantiated claims. You are clearly a moron. This is why I do not bother responding to you anyore; you are simply not someone worth taking seriously. And rest assured, you are NOT being taken seriously... on this newsgroup, or anywhere else. Thanks for playing, Chicken Little. Now try again. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:mOc19.72483$Og3.16...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > quitting the game over it. I will just have to deal with it, the same way I > had to deal with Jeff Thompson whipping my formerly, tournament-winning, > Jyhad-only Bloat deck at my second tournament with his !Tor intercept-hand > shrinking deck. It was an unhappy process. Holy crap! Jeff played something that wasn't Lasombra? :) Xian joking...joking...

vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com... > <snip crap> Personally, vermillian, I don't think you're in any position to be pointing fingers about trolling to this newsgroup. After all aren't you the one who thought it would be fun to go on the newsgroup as "dude man" and say that you had heard a bunch of new rumors from a playtester about the Camarilla set? (Do a search on "Cam Set rumours slipped by..." on Google Groups if you're wondering what I'm talking about.) I think it's a real shame the way the "regulars" on this newsgroup have been treating those with dissenting views. The truth is that it's sad that we're losing good players who have spent a lot of money and time promoting this game and showing other people how to play. I know this, because I know Awazzzz and I've spoken to Sorrow and I can assume that Kevin Scribner, as a playtester, has been involved in the game for awhile now. You might feel comfortable with the playgroups where you live, but in some areas, losing one person from a group can be devastating. Maybe the slack will be taken up with new players, but who knows? We lost players when Jyhad switched to V:TES. We lost players because of the 7/7 rulings. We're losing players again. Remember when white wolf first took over V:TES and they asked for all of our suggestions on what we would like to see done with the game? That was really nice. Too bad it didn't last. Neil paan...@ix.netcom.com

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020730162719...@mb-fg.aol.com... > Archon Wrote in Message: <mOc19.72483$Og3.16...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> > > >No, but six caitiff will definantly throw a wrench in it. Especially if any > >of their disciplines match up with the disciplines from the Caitiff in the > >Anarchs set. Also it keeps you having to double up on certain key vampires > >(Emerson Bridges for the Ventrue Law Firm, Gilbert Duane for Malkavian Bloat > >and Bleed) which lowers the overall effectiveness of the deck. > > Why do you like having to double up on vamps? You cannot have two of the same > vamp in play! How is having 100 one cap vamps any worse than having 15? Obviously, that with 100 one cap vampires you are going to have some crossover between certain disciplines (like Fortitude or Potence) that gives the 1 cap a disproportionate effect for its cost. Multiples of one cap vampires with the same single discipline is just bad. It increases your efficency of your deck many times over. This creates a environment were the vampires themselves are no longer precious resources, but rather throw away one-shot weenies that perform a function disproportionate to their cost or die. This is exactly the problem they are trying to avoid. > >Show me a soley Jyhad deck that has won lately in a tournament and we will > >argue the merits of Jyhad vampires > > Until now, I have not had to build crypts based upon expansion. So you have been winning this way? Where is the deck? Hypothetically > the entire 1-2 group will be outdated and outpowered by newer vamps - a deck > with soley 1-2 group vamps will not be winning tournamnets either. The same > could hold true for group 2-3. Jyhad vamps are now meritless and the rest of > the ones I own (group 2) will eventually be equally as mertiless. Hypothetically, you don't have to buy any of the CE and can play with all of your old cards. I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven't bought any of the expansions and are playing mainly with Jyhad/VTES anyway. CE doesn't change that. You can still play with your old vampires. As for the power escalation, I doubt that you will see any vampires more efficient than Gideon Fontain, or Chandler Hungerford ever. You can base entire decks around these guys that are peak efficiency for capacity to discipline spread. > >Here are the entirity of the rewrites > > Wow another 26 cards!! How many rewritten cards are there in the game? Alot, somewhere around 114 according to the Text Migrations. > Oh, I know the implications of how disasterous a recall is. So, you would prefer the game to go out of print again rather than see the Cam Ed. That sounds very selfish. Do you consider yourself a good person, or do like to intentionally inflict harm on those who provide you with entertainment? It sounds like to me that your current collection hasn't been updated in a while. That is your perogitive. I felt the same way about the expansions until I had my nose bloodied by one of many Sabbat Decks. It opened my eyes. When was the last time you bought enough of a VTES expansion to build a clan deck for each of the clans in the expansion? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Neil" <paan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:ai70qk$c5n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net... > vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com... > > > <snip crap> > > Personally, vermillian, I don't think you're in any position to be pointing > fingers about trolling to this newsgroup. > > After all aren't you the one who thought it would be fun to go on the > newsgroup as "dude man" and say that you had heard a bunch of new rumors > from a playtester about the Camarilla set? (Do a search on "Cam Set rumours > slipped by..." on Google Groups if you're wondering what I'm talking about.) > > I think it's a real shame the way the "regulars" on this newsgroup have been > treating those with dissenting views. But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This is basically the internet version of walking into a fraternity and saying "This fraternity sucks". Expect to get your ass whipped in an internet fashion. Some people are reasonable, but most people aren't. Especially when your whole premise is that I don't want to spend money on something that costs money. The truth is that it's sad that we're > losing good players who have spent a lot of money and time promoting this > game and showing other people how to play. I am willing to bet that alot of these players that are quitting didn't buy many of the recent expansions. I know this, because I know > Awazzzz and I've spoken to Sorrow and I can assume that Kevin Scribner, as a > playtester, has been involved in the game for awhile now. I know Sorrow quite well. He is a good player. It's a shame he is going to quit, but you know what they say, "You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nose." Also, Kevin Scribner royally fucked over everyone he playtested with. As such, he is not worthy of respect as a VTES playtester. So fuck him. > You might feel comfortable with the playgroups where you live, but in some > areas, losing one person from a group can be devastating. Maybe the slack > will be taken up with new players, but who knows? We are always losing players. The real world has a way of interferring. > Remember when white wolf first took over V:TES and they asked for all of our > suggestions on what we would like to see done with the game? That was really > nice. Too bad it didn't last. I think that they are doing something good. I don't think they are doing anything bad. Those that do think that they are doing something bad are in a small minority in this group. They are all reactionaries. They have always been. You should look at around the 7/7 rulings for those people you listed above. You will see the same names beside the comments that "the game doesn't need fixing" or "I am going to join the NJL." Hell, Sorrow said he was going to quit back then. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=6o3l6e%24lil%241% 40fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D7/7%2BSorrow%2Bgroup: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D6o3l6e %2524lil%25241%2540fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net%26rnum%3D3 In fact, you see less of this with this expansion. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > >> But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is > broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This > is basically the internet version of walking into a fraternity and saying > "This fraternity sucks". No, it isn't, Norm. The fundamental error here is that this newsgroup is not *our* fraternity just because we happen to be the ones who (still) like the game. The charter states, that the group is for "Discussion of the trading card game 'Jyhad'...." and I would certainly say that includes 'for' and 'against'. I don't expect anyone to get their ass whipped unless they started it by being rude to begin with. (Yup, LSJ is right. I feel like being contrary today.) Now, I don't harbor any illusions that a lot of this is sour grapes and suspect (as many do) that some of these people are just stomping around having a temper tantrum and will slip back in the back door a few months (or days) from now. But I do think it's silly to flame them for 'quitting' when they won't quit posting. They're perfectly entitled to do that if they like. And if and when they truly do separate themselves from the game, I'm pretty sure they'll quit posting soon enough. In the meantime, let's keep the debate centered around the issues if you're interested or just don't post to respond if you're not. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D4726E8...@removethis.com... > XZealot wrote: > > > >> But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is > > broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This > > is basically the internet version of walking into a fraternity and saying > > "This fraternity sucks". > > No, it isn't, Norm. The fundamental error here is that this newsgroup is > not *our* fraternity just because we happen to be the ones who (still) like > the game. The charter states, that the group is for "Discussion of the > trading card game 'Jyhad'...." and I would certainly say that includes > 'for' and 'against'. I don't expect anyone to get their ass whipped unless > they started it by being rude to begin with. Well, well, well, aren't you the humanitarian. Here's the deal. If you like the game, then that's fine. If you don't like the game, then that's fine, but you should be able to back up your position because no one likes a party pooper or someone who just wants to be negative. If you are going to quit, then just do everyone the favor and quit. But expect to get flamed and your ass whipped in the internet fashion if you say," I am going to quit because White Wolf is supporting a game that was set adrift in 1996, and I don't like it, and I don't support my arguements, and even though I quit I am still going to post on the newsgroup", which is basically what all these so called players are doing. I am of course using the "you" in a non-specific sense. So don't take it personally. > (Yup, LSJ is right. I feel like being contrary today.) See he is the omnicient ubermench. ;) > Now, I don't harbor any illusions that a lot of this is sour grapes and > suspect (as many do) that some of these people are just stomping around > having a temper tantrum and will slip back in the back door a few months > (or days) from now. But I do think it's silly to flame them for 'quitting' > when they won't quit posting. They're perfectly entitled to do that if > they like. And if and when they truly do separate themselves from the > game, I'm pretty sure they'll quit posting soon enough. In the meantime, > let's keep the debate centered around the issues if you're interested or > just don't post to respond if you're not. Oh, so they have the right to rain on my parade, but I can't tell them to stick it "where the sun doesn't shine". That's a brilliant idea. I hope you aren't my defense attorney when someone sues me for speaking up for the things I enjoy. Fred, FYI any asshole can burn down a barn, but it takes a lot of work and effort to build and maintain one. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > Tell you what. You said you stopped playing the game. How about you > and all the rest of > you jackasses claiming to quit the game, but still yammering on and > on, just shut the > fuck up and talk with your walllet like a good little consumer whore. > > Sheesh, > Noal I don't read hardly anything on the NG mostly because of that reason. People ceaselessly complaining about a product they don't like. agg damage to allies, CE, make my favourite clan better, i hate hearing about it. THE BEST WAY to tell a company you hate their product is to stop giving them your money for it!! I know it's a radical concept but it works. You don't fucking complain about MacDonalds and what they do to animals/environment 5 mins after eating a BigMac. Just stop buying their products. It's the best thing you can do. Peter Muto VEKN Prince of Toronto

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:29:04 -0400, "Neil" <paan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com... >I think it's a real shame the way the "regulars" on this newsgroup have been >treating those with dissenting views. The truth is that it's sad that we're It's sad that you use the kinder term 'Dissenting view', which does not accurately describe most of the protesting and antics that have occurred over the past few months. >We're losing players again. And they're going to be replaced. They probably won't be replaced with people that buy a case of any given expansion, but they're going to be replaced nontheless. Specifically, as a result of CE, we're losing players that have lost sight (if they ever had it) of the concept of dynamic rules, and rules maintenance. Really, I wonder if those folks should even be playing CCG at all, since CCG seem to consist of dynamic rules. Once the new rules are in circulation, and the new dynamics are tried, then we can start talking about how the game has improved (or not) from the changes. Until then, it's mostly tripe. Especially the flap over the Crypt Series (the dreaded "3"). I guess I need to get off on a tangent to explain the following: Crypt Series is a RULE (rool), and it's as arbitrary as base hand damage or bleed, or starting pool, or any other base parameter of the game. And it can be ignored, at least in non-tournament play. And even then, the tournaments can be hosted as 'unlimited crypt' variants, like the umpteen different draft tourney formats. And so what if you have to separate your crypt for a tournament? Be glad there isn't a rule mandating 75% same-clan crypts (ala this year's Storyline tournaments). >Remember when white wolf first took over V:TES and they asked for all of our >suggestions on what we would like to see done with the game? That was really >nice. Too bad it didn't last. Too bad you've been hanging around Awazzzz; it seems the melodramatic tart has rubbed off on you. Most of the card changes I've seen so far, corrolate with suggestions I've heard and/or seen in various places over the past couple of years. Except for 5th Trad; I'm not sure what happened there. So not only did WW ask for suggestions, they actually acted on some of them. Especially Fear of Mekhet. Now I don't have to hold them for 8 turns waiting for a Justicar to drop under 5 blood. Now if they'll make (Agony of) The Damned non-unique, and add Burn Option to more clan-specific cards... -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:jlE19.81887$Og3.21...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is > broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This > is basically the internet version of walking into a fraternity and saying > "This fraternity sucks". Expect to get your ass whipped in an internet > fashion. Some people are reasonable, but most people aren't. Especially > when your whole premise is that I don't want to spend money on something > that costs money. Fred's right -- this isn't a fraternity, it's an open forum for Jyhad. > I am willing to bet that alot of these players that are quitting didn't buy > many of the recent expansions. I think you will lose that bet. I know that Awazzzz bought all of the expansions and I'm pretty sure Sorrow and Kevin did too. > We are always losing players. The real world has a way of interferring. This is true, thus it's important to hold onto the players who are loyal. > I think that they are doing something good. I don't think they are doing > anything bad. Those that do think that they are doing something bad are in > a small minority in this group. They are all reactionaries. They have > always been. You should look at around the 7/7 rulings for those people you > listed above. You will see the same names beside the comments that "the > game doesn't need fixing" or "I am going to join the NJL." Hell, Sorrow > said he was going to quit back then. Okay, but personally I doubt that if LSJ or Steve had polled the newsgroup with: "What do you think -- we're going to completely redesign the cards, does that sound reasonable?" that most of us would have said, "Yes, thank you, we've been dying for it to look different." On that, at least, they could've asked us, for starters. Neil paan...@ix.netcom.com

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:32:06 -0500, "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is >broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This Don't forget the "White Wolf/LSJ screwed me over {because I was dumb enough to pay $6 for a 5th Trad}." angle. >"Neil" <paan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> I know this, because I know >> Awazzzz and I've spoken to Sorrow and I can assume that Kevin Scribner, as >>a playtester, has been involved in the game for awhile now. And that's a bad assumption if it isn't proven, btw. >I know Sorrow quite well. He is a good player. It's a shame he is going >to quit, but you know what they say, "You can pick your friends, but you >can't pick your friend's nose." Yeah, I think he went over the edge a bit early here. Maybe in a few months, but now is not the time to bail. >Also, Kevin Scribner royally fucked over everyone he playtested with. As >such, he is not worthy of respect as a VTES playtester. So fuck him. Not only that, I'd say he's not worthy of any trust in any matter that requires confidentiality. That was a poor action, and generally uncalled for. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Peter D Bakija wrote in message: ><B96C7331.6927%PD...@bigplanet.com> >Awazzzz wrote: > >> Until now, I have not had to build crypts based upon expansion. >> Hypothetically >> the entire 1-2 group will be outdated and outpowered by newer vamps - a >deck >> with soley 1-2 group vamps will not be winning tournamnets either. The >same >> could hold true for group 2-3. Jyhad vamps are now meritless and the rest >of >> the ones I own (group 2) will eventually be equally as mertiless. > >This statement is based on, umm, what exactly? Well, in earlier postings on this thread I explained that I feel the new cards outdate the old cards and therefore subject them to the same type of effective banning that an underpowered card receives from a broken card. The VTES vamps are less powerful than the CE vamps (by point comparison). The group 4 vamps, I am supposing, will be designed to work together (i.e. the 4th discipline) while the group 2 vamps were designed for use with multiple decks. This will make the 3-4 group much more powerful than the 1-2 group and the 2-3 group. This is hypothetical of course, but it based on the principle that the post-grouping-rule vamps will be designed to work together - while the group 2 vamps had tweekers (i.e. the Keeper of Secrets Giovanni) that do not work well with the other group 2 vamps.

>Derek Ray wrote in message: ><rhudkucek30mu1r3l...@4ax.com> > >Your demand is laughable and ridiculous on its face. > >You are incapable of responding coherently to arguments; instead, you >respond with hyperbole, hand-waving, and inaccurate facts, as well as >foolish insubstantiated claims. > >You are clearly a moron. > >This is why I do not bother responding to you anyore; you are simply not >someone worth taking seriously. And rest assured, you are NOT being >taken seriously... on this newsgroup, or anywhere else. > >Thanks for playing, Chicken Little. Now try again. How is it laughable? Do you plan on providing reasons for what you say, or are you expecting insults to do the job for you? How is calling me Chicken Little responding coherently to my arguments. I find your use of "foolish unsubstantiated claims" to be quite ironic.

>"XZealot" - The Archon of the Swamp wrote in message: > >Obviously, that with 100 one cap vampires you are going to have some >crossover between certain disciplines (like Fortitude or Potence) that gives >the 1 cap a disproportionate effect for its cost. Multiples of one cap >vampires with the same single discipline is just bad. It increases your >efficency of your deck many times over. Not necesarrily, I believe that ALL one cap vamps should be given HARSH drawbacks that directly effect the discipline they have. >This creates a environment were the vampires themselves are no longer >precious resources, but rather throw away one-shot weenies that perform a >function disproportionate to their cost or die. This is exactly the problem >they are trying to avoid. Oh no, that environment already exists. How many vamps did people abuse with Old Fame? If your Caitiff is at close range with a Justicar - will you not set off the White Phospherous grenade? One chot weenies are part of the game and always will be. >> Until now, I have not had to build crypts based upon expansion. > >So you have been winning this way? Where is the deck? Yes. All of my decks are based on Vamp merits and not on which expansion the vamps came from. Have you been building crypts based on expansion set? >Hypothetically, you don't have to buy any of the CE and can play with all of >your old cards. I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven't bought any of >the expansions and are playing mainly with Jyhad/VTES anyway. CE doesn't >change that. You can still play with your old vampires. I think that it would be nice to be able to play my vamps WITH the CE vamps, and the group 4 vamps. I don't see the point of collecting group 1 vamps. I don't see the point of collecting group 3 vamps. I can't use the new vamps with my current vamps - So why buy them? I can't compete with the new vamps with my vamps - So why play? >As for the power escalation, I doubt that you will see any vampires more >efficient than Gideon Fontain, or Chandler Hungerford ever. You can base >entire decks around these guys that are peak efficiency for capacity to >discipline spread. 3 pool for SUP is pretty cool. However, I do not fear these vamps, nor do I fear multiple copies of these vamps. Has anyone playtested various ubercrypts using paroxys? I think that I could beat any of them just fine using only group 1-2 vamps. I would probably use my "Fortitude Weenies" crypt to do this (See Beware Ubercrypt thread). >> Wow another 26 cards!! How many rewritten cards are there in the game? > >Alot, somewhere around 114 according to the Text Migrations. Okay, so there have been 114 rewrites. How many broken cards have there been in the game? >> Oh, I know the implications of how disasterous a recall is. > >So, you would prefer the game to go out of print again rather than see the >Cam Ed. That sounds very selfish. Do you consider yourself a good person, >or do like to intentionally inflict harm on those who provide you with >entertainment? Please understand, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE VTES GO OUT OF PRINT!!! I simply want to see it done well. I am vehement about posting here because I feel I represent an unspoken group of VTES players. CE really scares me. Remember when Jyhad retailed for $10 a box? The losers there were the distributors - and being an account manager for a microsystems distributor, and believe me, distributors do not like to lose money. I do not know if CE will fail or not (I do not know how much of the player base I represent, but I do know that I do not like CE.) If CE gets released and fails, WW will not lose as much money on it as a product recall, but the distributors will. This would kill the game and VTES would go out of print again. I do not want to see this happen. I want WW to "fix" CE so that it does not outdate my current collection - and re-release it - ensuring many great years of VTES to come. >When was the last time you bought enough of a VTES expansion to build a clan >deck for each of the clans in the expansion? I believe that one was called something like Bloodlines - but it's been so long now that I cannot remember.

XZealot wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D4726E8...@removethis.com... > > XZealot wrote: > > Well, well, well, aren't you the humanitarian. You got it. I'm a regular fucking Mother Theresa. > But expect to get flamed and your ass whipped in the internet fashion if you > say," I am going to quit because White Wolf is supporting a game that was > set adrift in 1996, and I don't like it, and I don't support my arguements, You're not being very perceptive. Nobody supports their arguments. I've been reading Usenet since 1945 and I have yet to see an argument actually supported by anything resembling "reason" or "logic". All I ever see in this place is a parade of unsupported positions floating on clouds of derision and anger. It's just that some of them are more entertaining than others and those are the ones I tend to agree with. Except when I don't. "Supported arguments", my left hairy nut. I *hate* that excuse for people losing their temper at others and just letting their posts devolve into pure flames. Is it so tough to *patiently* and *reasonably* tell some clown off?!? I honestly think that at some point, you only give people more credence than they deserve by stooping to flame them. If your position is so damn righteous (and I'm not saying it isn't), then what's wrong with just saying it simply and letting it go? > and even though I quit I am still going to post on the newsgroup", which is > basically what all these so called players are doing. I am of course using > the "you" in a non-specific sense. So don't take it personally. > > > (Yup, LSJ is right. I feel like being contrary today.) > > See he is the omnicient ubermench. ;) He is. > > ...I do think it's silly to flame them for 'quitting' when they won't > > quit posting. They're perfectly entitled to do that if they like. > > Oh, so they have the right to rain on my parade, but I can't tell them to > stick it "where the sun doesn't shine". Sure, you can tell them. Anybody can say anything here, as long as it's on-topic. It's just that your reasons for telling them to *shut up* - as opposed to telling them the reasons why they're wrong - are also wrong. So by the non-support-of-arguments rule, you get to sit at the back of the room with them. So if you continue to post (and by logic and reason), I will therefore assume you also support THEIR right to post and argue back. Fred

In message <ai70qk$c5n$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Neil <paan...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >I think it's a real shame the way the "regulars" on this newsgroup have been >treating those with dissenting views. Important omission from your sentence: "...those with dissenting views who sit there spinning soundbites and hyperbole based on nothing more than paranoid delusions, rather than providing discussion, proof, theory, strategy, evidence and so forth." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020730163604...@mb-fg.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Staple cards define the balance curve. New cards should be designed to fit >within that curve. The new cards are then themselves staple cards. A card fitting in a power curve doesn't make it a staple card. Bzzzzt. Out of cheese error. Please re-install Awazzzz.hyperbole.so and reboot. Free hint: Many useful, but corner-case, cards fit in the power curve very neatly, but are rarely used. Not because they're bad, but because they're unpopular, or have other drawbacks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020730164520...@mb-fg.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >But I am a troll. Well, there we go then. You're a troll. Bye now. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Not necesarrily, I believe that ALL one cap vamps should be given HARSH > drawbacks that directly effect the discipline they have. Then you get a bunch of Rex, the Useless. So you are now saying to print a bunch of useless vampires. That makes no sense. > >This creates a environment were the vampires themselves are no longer > >precious resources, but rather throw away one-shot weenies that perform a > >function disproportionate to their cost or die. This is exactly the problem > >they are trying to avoid. > > Oh no, that environment already exists. How many vamps did people abuse with > Old Fame? That is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Fame acts against the vampires controller. If your Caitiff is at close range with a Justicar - will you not set > off the White Phospherous grenade? One chot weenies are part of the game and > always will be. Sure, but the Justicar should dodge, or prevent all of your damage. Caitiff with WPG are not "the end all be all" of combat. > >So you have been winning this way? Where is the deck? > > Yes. All of my decks are based on Vamp merits and not on which expansion the > vamps came from. Have you been building crypts based on expansion set? Yes, I have built deck including Bloodlines when Bloodlines came out. The same goes for Final Nights and Sabbat War. > >Hypothetically, you don't have to buy any of the CE and can play with all of > >your old cards. I have a sneaking suspicion that you haven't bought any of > >the expansions and are playing mainly with Jyhad/VTES anyway. CE doesn't > >change that. You can still play with your old vampires. > > I think that it would be nice to be able to play my vamps WITH the CE vamps, > and the group 4 vamps. Then you should make a house rule that says you can. I don't see the point of collecting group 1 vamps. I > don't see the point of collecting group 3 vamps. I can't use the new vamps > with my current vamps - So why buy them? I can't compete with the new vamps > with my vamps - So why play? Well, there you go. Why are you playing? It doesn't sound like it is fun for you. You know this is a game, and it is supposed to be fun. I would recommend taking up another hobby if VTES puts you into the depths of despair. > >As for the power escalation, I doubt that you will see any vampires more > >efficient than Gideon Fontain, or Chandler Hungerford ever. You can base > >entire decks around these guys that are peak efficiency for capacity to > >discipline spread. > > 3 pool for SUP is pretty cool. However, I do not fear these vamps, nor do I > fear multiple copies of these vamps. Has anyone playtested various ubercrypts > using paroxys? I think that I could beat any of them just fine using only > group 1-2 vamps. I would probably use my "Fortitude Weenies" crypt to do this > (See Beware Ubercrypt thread). So how do your vampires not compete with group 3 vampires? Apparently your "Fortitude Weenies" deck is competitive. > Okay, so there have been 114 rewrites. How many broken cards have there been > in the game? A shitload of broken cards and a shitload of wallpaper. BTW, Majesty is now balance with all the other cards that give an unrestricted S:CE at inferior and the 5th Trad now is balanced against its cost. > Please understand, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE VTES GO OUT OF PRINT!!! I simply want > to see it done well. I am vehement about posting here because I feel I > represent an unspoken group of VTES players. CE really scares me. Remember > when Jyhad retailed for $10 a box? The losers there were the distributors - > and being an account manager for a microsystems distributor, and believe me, > distributors do not like to lose money. I do not know if CE will fail or not > (I do not know how much of the player base I represent, but I do know that I do > not like CE.) If CE gets released and fails, WW will not lose as much money on > it as a product recall, but the distributors will. This would kill the game > and VTES would go out of print again. I do not want to see this happen. I > want WW to "fix" CE so that it does not outdate my current collection - and > re-release it - ensuring many great years of VTES to come. Recalling the product will make WW lose money on it. If WW loses money on it, then you have stripped WW of the incentive to continue supporting it. Your logic is faulty. What really needs to happen is that you need to deal with the changes being made and get over it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You're not being very perceptive. Nobody supports their arguments. I've > been reading Usenet since 1945 and I have yet to see an argument actually > supported by anything resembling "reason" or "logic". All I ever see in this > place is a parade of unsupported positions floating on clouds of derision and > anger. It's just that some of them are more entertaining than others and those > are the ones I tend to agree with. Except when I don't. 1945, that predates the internet. Man, you are really old. I don't know what passed for logic in 1945, but I see plenty of reasonable arguements and debates everyday. You must be doing something wrong if all you get in return is "clouds of derision and anger." > "Supported arguments", my left hairy nut. I *hate* that excuse for people > losing their temper at others and just letting their posts devolve into > pure flames. Is it so tough to *patiently* and *reasonably* tell some > clown off?!? I think I have been a modicum of Patience and Resonability. Please go talk to Derek about irritability and anger. I honestly think that at some point, you only give people more > credence than they deserve by stooping to flame them. If your position is > so damn righteous (and I'm not saying it isn't), then what's wrong with > just saying it simply and letting it go? Where have I flamed someone, who didn't deserve it by making munchin remark? Please let me know. I think that I am very reasonable. > > > ...I do think it's silly to flame them for 'quitting' when they won't > > > quit posting. They're perfectly entitled to do that if they like. > > > > Oh, so they have the right to rain on my parade, but I can't tell them to > > stick it "where the sun doesn't shine". > > Sure, you can tell them. Anybody can say anything here, as long as it's > on-topic. It's just that your reasons for telling them to *shut up* - as > opposed to telling them the reasons why they're wrong - are also wrong. > So by the non-support-of-arguments rule, you get to sit at the back of the > room with them. So if you continue to post (and by logic and reason), I > will therefore assume you also support THEIR right to post and argue back. Apparently you are talking to the wrong person. I don't tell people to "Shut Up". I reason with them; the same way I am reasoning with you. Why don't you tell this to Noal or Derek. They love this stuff. Now it is time for your hug therapy. [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020731023516...@mb-mf.aol.com>... > I think that it would be nice to be able to play my vamps WITH the CE vamps, > and the group 4 vamps. I don't see the point of collecting group 1 vamps. I > don't see the point of collecting group 3 vamps. I can't use the new vamps > with my current vamps - So why buy them? I can't compete with the new vamps > with my vamps - So why play? Your concern may or may not be founded. You don't know that the group 3 vamps will all be so powerful that your group 1 vampires will all be obsolete/underpowered by comparison. > 3 pool for SUP is pretty cool. However, I do not fear these vamps, nor do I > fear multiple copies of these vamps. Has anyone playtested various ubercrypts > using paroxys? I think that I could beat any of them just fine using only > group 1-2 vamps. I would probably use my "Fortitude Weenies" crypt to do this And indeed you contradict yourself here, by saying that you can beat any "ubercrypt" with your group 1-2 vampires. Why would you be able to beat an "ubercrypt" and not be able to beat group 3 vampires (which are certainly not going to be "ubercrypt")? > I do not want to see this happen. I want WW to "fix" CE so that it does not > outdate my current collection - and re-release it - ensuring many great years > of VTES to come. I'm curious as to why you think CE will "outdate" your current collection? Everything that you seem to be annoyed with about CE has already happened before: -More powerful vampires? Sabbat and Sabbat War vamps beat the piss out of Jyhad/Vtes if you use the "point system". -Reprints changing the way your cards work? Heidelburg Castle? Ruins of Villar's Abbey? Aquired Ventrue Assets? Zip Gun? Fame? Banishment? Blood Tears? Taste of Vitae? Immortal Grapple? Sure the old worded cards became less desireable to have when teaching new players, but they certainly were still playable. -New layout? This is completely subjective whether you like it or not, so any dislike you have of it is valid. But it certainly doesn't "outdate" your current collection. Nobody's taking away your cards. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything new. Nobody's saying you can't play with the old cards. You stated above that you're confident that you can beat "ubercrypts" with your group 1-2 decks. I am equally certain that if you can back up that claim that you will have no problem smashing all of the fools who buy CE to play with the new vampires. Oh, that's right, you're giving up the game. Got any Shadow Steps for sale?

In message <20020731020836...@mb-mf.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >>This is why I do not bother responding to you anyore; you are simply not >>someone worth taking seriously. And rest assured, you are NOT being >>taken seriously... on this newsgroup, or anywhere else. >> >>Thanks for playing, Chicken Little. Now try again. > >How is it laughable? Do you plan on providing reasons for what you say, or are I already did, once; you never responded. You have yet to provide actually FUNCTIONAL arguments, as opposed to just random blathering. >you expecting insults to do the job for you? How is calling me Chicken Little >responding coherently to my arguments. I find your use of "foolish THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! >unsubstantiated claims" to be quite ironic. I'm sure you would. But then, you're a moron. Your unmitigated GALL in assuming that you are somehow important enough to provoke any sort of changes in the already-printed Camarilla Edition, and that somehow your opinion, despite being visibly in the minority (and oh, yes, you MOST CERTAINLY ARE in the minority) about the changes, is mysteriously "right"... is simply amazing. FURTHER despite the fact that all of us have been discussing many such changes for several years (you haven't), been playing consistently (you haven't), been at ground zero for each of the new sets (you haven't), been at ground zero for the major tournaments (you haven't)... The only thing that could possibly make you believe that you even have a REMOTE handle on what's happening here is an incredible case of megalomania, or just plain old butt-fucking stupidity. So which is it? [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020730164520...@mb-fg.aol.com>... > >vermil...@yahoo.com > > wrote in message > > ><f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com>.. > > >My apologies everyone... I just realized that what I did could be > >considered feeding the troll... > > I am not defaming the newsgroup. I am not defaming VTES. I am ostenibly > opposed to one of the nine sets of the game... But I am a troll. I would > rather be a troll anyday than a sheep!! Would you prefer a newsgroup of people > who blindly followed ant staus quo that was thrown at them? Yes! Please lord, yes! :) Its a game. Game's have rules. If you play the game, you use their rules. If you complain about the rules, you either get over it in a few weeks, or quit the game, or play your own damn way. If its the latter, you're no longer playing the official game and any bitching done by one who plays their own game should slap themselves. Just some thoughts. > I'm sorry, but I > don't think that would lead to very interesting conversations. Should we have > two newsgroups - rec.games.pussywhipsheep and rec.games.trollingbitchslap? > (Joke) No!! I have spent enough time, money, and energy on this game where I > will not sit idly by while it gets ruined. Point. But I spent a lot of time and money on my ex-girlfriend, but I don't petition a newsgroup to have her brought back. j/k ~SV

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02073...@posting.google.com>... <snip> > Who in the > blue hell are you? > Some guy who claims that he was responsible for some post-7/7 > compromise? *snort* > Whatever, dude. > > Tell you what. You said you stopped playing the game. How about you > and all the rest of > you jackasses claiming to quit the game, but still yammering on and > on, just shut the > fuck up and talk with your walllet like a good little consumer whore. Heh. That last bit was especially poetic *golf claps* ~SV

> > But they are not dissenting views, they are view which say "The game is > > broken/ruined/outdated and I quit, but not after I have had my say." This > > is basically the internet version of walking into a fraternity and saying > > "This fraternity sucks". Expect to get your ass whipped in an internet > > fashion. Some people are reasonable, but most people aren't. Especially > > when your whole premise is that I don't want to spend money on something > > that costs money. > > Fred's right -- this isn't a fraternity, it's an open forum for Jyhad. Do you know what metaphor means? How about what simile means? It was an allusion. If you don't have the vocabulary to enter into the debate then you probably shouldn't. > > We are always losing players. The real world has a way of interferring. > > This is true, thus it's important to hold onto the players who are loyal. I would definantly have to say that if you are quitting then you aren't that loyal. > Okay, but personally I doubt that if LSJ or Steve had polled the newsgroup > with: "What do you think -- we're going to completely redesign the cards, > does that sound reasonable?" that most of us would have said, "Yes, thank > you, we've been dying for it to look different." On that, at least, they > could've asked us, for starters. Why should they have done that? Do you own stock in White Wolf? You are a customer, and yes, I understand that "the customer is always right." How do you know that the new look isn't going to be a huge success? Tell me that. [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020730164520...@mb-fg.aol.com>... > >vermil...@yahoo.com > > wrote in message > > ><f987c6cd.02072...@posting.google.com>.. > > >My apologies everyone... I just realized that what I did could be > >considered feeding the troll... > > I am not defaming the newsgroup. I am not defaming VTES. I am ostenibly > opposed to one of the nine sets of the game... But I am a troll. I would > rather be a troll anyday than a sheep!! Would you prefer a newsgroup of people > who blindly followed ant staus quo that was thrown at them? I'm sorry, but I > don't think that would lead to very interesting conversations. Should we have > two newsgroups - rec.games.pussywhipsheep and rec.games.trollingbitchslap? > (Joke) No!! I have spent enough time, money, and energy on this game where I > will not sit idly by while it gets ruined. I question someone who jumps to so many conclusions from a limited field of pre-released information. I wouldn't label you a troll, but I do find that most of your posts have a "The Sky is Falling" feel to them. No one here is "blindly following the status quo". The fact that everyone has posted opinions about things they like and dislike about the new set is proof of that. (Personally, I'd be happier if fewer card texts were changed). Not many other people, though, are sounding a death knell over the changes being made. Thats because doing so would be a gross overreaction to the changes being made... (hint, hint) You keep getting responses to your foolishness simply because people who know better about the game than you are concerned that a casual reader of the NG might assume that an unanswered post implies tacit agreement with your POV. Do us all a favor, and stop it. This routine is getting tired. If you were serious about a recall, and not just grandstanding on a newsgroup, then tell us about your myriad phone calls and email campaigns to White Wolf, intended to have your recall happen. You can't, because you have made no such effort. That alone reveals you to be little more than a fraud. You have next to no support from the rest of the VTES playing community in your position (there might be two or three others who wholly agree with you...), and that's probably another reason why you haven't taken any real sort of action. You're just an "armchair CEO" spouting off about how you would run the show, and its a terribly sad thing to observe. You have my pity... Regards DaveZ Atom Weaver

> that group 2-3 will be a better choice for crypt construction than group 1-2. > Why do I want to continue playing with my Group 1 vamps? Because Tura Vaun has > big breasts, that's why! YEEESSSSSS !!!! My thoughts exactly... :-)) Obsessed Orpheus

Awazzzz wrote: > Well, in earlier postings on this thread I explained that I feel the new cards > outdate the old cards and therefore subject them to the same type of effective > banning that an underpowered card receives from a broken card. The VTES vamps > are less powerful than the CE vamps (by point comparison). This is a faulty observation. *Some* of the original Jyhad vampires are weaker, point for point, than similar sized Sabbat/SW/FN/BL vampires due to a change in the "point" building scheme: A) +1 bleed and +1 strength originally cost 2 "points", and B) Vampires in the 9+ range used to get fewer "points" in abilities in Jyhad. As a result, yes, vampires like Adrianne are simply worse than, say, Sheila Mezzarin. This doesn't, however, mean that all the staple vampires such as: -all the 2 point vampires with 1 inferior discipline. -all the 3 point vampires with 2 inferior disciplines. -all the 3 point vampires with 1 superior discipline. -all the 4 point vampires with 3 inferior disciplines. -all the 5 point vampires with 2 superiors and 1 inferior. -all the 6 point vampires with 2 superiors and 2 inferiors. -all the 7 point vampires with 2 superiors, 2 inferiors, and a special ability or title. will ever be obsoleted. They are the basis upon which all the vampires in the game are designed and compared. They were when the game started, they are now, and they shall continue to be so. Stating that all the CE vampires are just better than the Jyhad/VTES vampires is simply wrong. Using the preview vampires for evidence, of the 6 up on the WW site, 5 of them are perfectly in line with the vampire design principles of the previous 3 or so sets, and while Carna clearly is slightly over the top, in terms of utility, only by a point or so. Given that she is one out of 6 vampires, I'll assume that she is an anomaly, rather than assume that the other 5 are anomalies. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "Grr! Release the Monkey!" -Zim

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fLR19.90577$Og3.22...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com... > A shitload of broken cards and a shitload of wallpaper. BTW, Majesty is now > balance with all the other cards that give an unrestricted S:CE at inferior Hey, be careful with that tiny word "all". At least until the anarch set we can still abuse Earth Melds. -JTP

"John" <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Gk_19.79801$Ag2.3...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca... [ quoted text not captured ] You are correct. I should have mentioned that. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > I wrote: > > I honestly think that at some point, you only give people more > > credence than they deserve by stooping to flame them. If your position is > > so damn righteous (and I'm not saying it isn't), then what's wrong with > > just saying it simply and letting it go? > > Where have I flamed someone, who didn't deserve it by making munchin remark? > Please let me know. I think that I am very reasonable. And where have I actually accused you of flaming them? I'm merely disputing certain comments you've made. Though you may not be one of the ones doing it, the tenor of what you've been saying is that it's OK and reasonable that they get flamed for a particular set of conditions: "But expect to get flamed and your ass whipped in the internet fashion if you say, 'I am going to quit because White Wolf is supporting a game that was set adrift in 1996, and I don't like it, and I don't support my arguments, and even though I quit I am still going to post on the newsgroup',..." Maybe you wouldn't do it yourself. Fine. But I still say, "whipping and flaming" people over this is completely unnecessary. Who supports their arguments and who doesn't is always going to be matter of opinion. And the last comment there clearly expresses the idea that there is something somehow wrong about the concept of posting on the newsgroup when they're quitting. There is no such convention. I would say it makes their resolve to quit sound pretty hollow to most people, but if they still want to talk about a game they no longer play, they're perfectly well entitled. > Why don't you tell this to Noal or Derek. Last I looked, Usenet posts are broadcast to all. I responded to your comments because they expressed exactly some of the sentiments about this that I don't care for (that I noticed, anyway). In short, you managed to put your finger directly on the hot button. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D48D152...@removethis.com... > XZealot wrote: > > I wrote: > > > I honestly think that at some point, you only give people more > > > credence than they deserve by stooping to flame them. If your position is > > > so damn righteous (and I'm not saying it isn't), then what's wrong with > > > just saying it simply and letting it go? > And where have I actually accused you of flaming them? I'm merely disputing > certain comments you've made. Though you may not be one of the ones doing it, > the tenor of what you've been saying is that it's OK and reasonable that they > get flamed for a particular set of conditions: I believe you implied that I flamed people in the above quoted comment. Yes, I did say that it was okay for someone to get flamed if they don't support their arguements. > "But expect to get flamed and your ass whipped in the internet fashion if > you say, 'I am going to quit because White Wolf is supporting a game that was > set adrift in 1996, and I don't like it, and I don't support my arguments, > and even though I quit I am still going to post on the newsgroup',..." > > Maybe you wouldn't do it yourself. Fine. But I still say, "whipping and > flaming" people over this is completely unnecessary. The problem is that they are being negative without presenting a solution. I don't think that the first post where they said, "I quit and this game is going to hell", really bothered me. The one's that bothered me are the 5th and 6th post from the same person who said, "I quit and this game is going to hell." Who supports their > arguments and who doesn't is always going to be matter of opinion. Generally, that is where you are wrong. Logic, consistancy, and prose all have large impacts on arguements, as well as, addressing specific points that contradict one's beliefs. This is the foundations for Philosophic dialogue, which is in effect what we are doing here. And the > last comment there clearly expresses the idea that there is something somehow > wrong about the concept of posting on the newsgroup when they're quitting. > There is no such convention. I would say it makes their resolve to quit sound > pretty hollow to most people, but if they still want to talk about a game they > no longer play, they're perfectly well entitled. Correct, I can't stop them from posting, but I can try to dissuade them from posting. > Last I looked, Usenet posts are broadcast to all. I responded to your comments > because they expressed exactly some of the sentiments about this that I don't > care for (that I noticed, anyway). In short, you managed to put your finger > directly on the hot button. Do you need a hug? Don't be afraid of your emotions. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D48D152...@removethis.com... > > Maybe you wouldn't do it yourself. Fine. But I still say, "whipping and > > flaming" people over this is completely unnecessary. > > The problem is that they are being negative without presenting a solution. > I don't think that the first post where they said, "I quit and this game is > going to hell", really bothered me. The one's that bothered me are the 5th > and 6th post from the same person who said, "I quit and this game is going > to hell." Understandable. Just not that helpful for other people to be overly reactive to it is all. > > Who supports their > > arguments and who doesn't is always going to be matter of opinion. > > Generally, that is where you are wrong. Logic, consistancy, and prose all > have large impacts on arguements, as well as, addressing specific points > that contradict one's beliefs. This is the foundations for Philosophic > dialogue, which is in effect what we are doing here. I agree with that, too. Good reasoning is what solves problems and makes for convincing arguments. But there's no objective test one can make to prove that any given post contains nor lacks those things. Thus subjective, thus a matter of opinion - however certain you may be of yours. > Do you need a hug? Don't be afraid of your emotions. Hey, I trust my emotions just fine. In fact, I generally leave them in charge whenever I take leave of my senses. They're very responsible and seldom throw wild parties. Fred

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote: > Noal wrote: > >> I had to go back a couple days to find a post that really pissed me >> off. However, I knew that awazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wouldn't >> disappoint me. > > > > Glad I didn't let you down - did you enjoy your coffee? Yes, thank you. Did you enjoy your picket line stroll? >> As Norman pointed out, how do you propose to prevent it? Stand >> in front of the distributors' trucks with your little picket sign? Letter >> to your Congressman? Burn yourself in effigy? (Feel free to try this >> one) > > I am not going to but the cards and am encouraging others not to buy them. Using your money and your voice are certainly valid tools to use. However, I'd like you to provide honest answers to a few questions so that we can determine how potent your use of said tools are. 1) How many boxes (or boosters) have you purchased of each expansion (please list them individually, not as a collective whole) since V:TES was released? If you don't know exact numbers, give a reasonable estimation. 2) What are your concerns with the Camarilla Edition? Please provide solid reasoning to back them up, such as explaining a negative effect on game balance. Please refrain from wild conjecture. Also, note that vampires from older sets will be just as playable after the Camarilla Edition release as they are today and White Wolf isn't responsible for the value of cards in the secondary market and V:TES was never a money game anyway. 3) Who in the blue hell are you? Why should anyone listen to the words that are coming out of your mouth, or more accurately, your keyboard? You have done nothing to contribute to the community that would cause us to take you seriously without a logical argument. >> If those staple cards have, over time, lent themselves to a game >> unbalancing effect, then absolutely they should be reworked. Your >> idea to raise the power of the new cards,would cause an effect >> similar to an arms race. By changing old cards, you force people >> to change their old decks, preventing stagnation in a game that >> can ill afford it. > > Staple cards define the balance curve. New cards should be designed > to fit within that curve. The new cards are then themselves staple cards. Follow the bouncing ball. The "staple" cards that you allude to have been proven, over time, to be game winners. People have stated on many occasions that if a significant portion of your crypt is made up of Princes and/or Justicars, than you are foolish if you don't play with 2nd Tradition. Similarly, show me a single competitive deck that primarily uses Presence and does not have combat or intercept as an important element that doesn't use Majesty or Catatonic Fear. The problem is that those "staple" cards have become "no brainer" cards that people add into decks, knowing that they will help them win games with minimal cost. By making those cards less of a "no brainer," people will be forced to explore other aspects of the game, thus preventing stagnation. If you don't adress some of the older "staple" cards, new cards will have to increase the balance curve or the game will stagnate. By bringing the power of those cards in line with most of the rest of the game, you will avoid having to do that. >> In fact, I'll bet money that WW will sell out their first printing in less >> than a month after the release date. > > I'm willing to take that bet. How much do you want to go for? I am > willing to make a handshake bet or all the way up to US$50. Just $50? How can you afford to eat? I only make handshake bets with friends, and you're no friend of mine. It would also be a shame to take money from someone who can't afford to lose it. However, since you aren't going to be spending it on CE cards, I'll happily take your money so that it does get spent on the CE set. > Quitting the game and quitting yammering are two different thing entirely. I > have spent enough on this game that I feel I own a little bit of it. After all > isn't buying anything that you don't consume an investment? You own a little bit of it? Did you buy stock? In WotC or White Wolf? An investment is spending money on something that you expect to get a monetary profit from. If you expected to make a profit from V:TES, I've got a bridge to sell you. Btw, hours of enjoyment does not a profit make. Money spent on V:TES is what is called an "entertainment expense" in a household budget. It falls in the same class as movie tickets. Ask your accountant. I still don't understand what the fuck has happened to kids today. Getting emotionally attached to a game is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. I enjoy playing V:TES with my friends and in tournaments against good competition. I also enjoy playing Settlers of Catan with them and I'm sure I'd enjoy tiddlywinks, too. But I don't get wound up because a new expansion or edition has come out that I don't care for. Rather than getting wound up, I just don't buy it. V:TES is a game. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is on crack. If you don't like the new edtion, fine. Don't buy it. Just don't be surprised if your prostelyzing on a nesgroup for the fans of the game falls on deaf ears. Yeesh. Noal

> > The problem is that they are being negative without presenting a solution. > > I don't think that the first post where they said, "I quit and this game is > > going to hell", really bothered me. The one's that bothered me are the 5th > > and 6th post from the same person who said, "I quit and this game is going > > to hell." > > Understandable. Just not that helpful for other people to be overly > reactive to it is all. But I am giving them what they want. Otherwise, they wouldn't present such pretentious poppycock as "The game is broken now that you rewrote this card" or "this card was at the top of the power curve, they didn't need to depower it". You see I'm a "giver". :) > > Generally, that is where you are wrong. Logic, consistancy, and prose all > > have large impacts on arguements, as well as, addressing specific points > > that contradict one's beliefs. This is the foundations for Philosophic > > dialogue, which is in effect what we are doing here. > > I agree with that, too. Good reasoning is what solves problems and makes for > convincing arguments. But there's no objective test one can make to prove > that any given post contains nor lacks those things. Thus subjective, thus a > matter of opinion - however certain you may be of yours. Of course not, Philosophy is not an exact science, but strangly enough Science finds it roots in philosophy. Philosophy is not objective but it does encourage objectivity. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02080...@posting.google.com>... > awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote: > > Noal wrote: <snip> > > 3) Who in the blue hell are you? Why should anyone listen to the words > that are coming out of your mouth, or more accurately, your keyboard? > You have done nothing to contribute to the community that would cause > us to take you seriously without a logical argument. > <snip> Actually Noal, that point really isn't valid. I'm not necessarily agreeing with awazzzz (he's just trolling I think) but your point #3 is simply an argument from authority. Something to the effect of since I post more than you do, or have been posting longer than you have, etc., my viewpoint is more valid or right than yours. Which is simply not the case logically. Heaven forbid if that *was* true, Coupe would be the 'authority' on the Jyhad NG and *then* where would we be? Peter Muto VEKN Prince of Toronto

In message <df76291d.02080...@posting.google.com>, Peter Muto <megatr...@yahoo.com> writes: >Something to the effect of since I post more than you do, or have been >posting longer than you have, etc., my viewpoint is more valid or >right than yours. Which is simply not the case logically. > >Heaven forbid if that *was* true, Coupe would be the 'authority' on >the Jyhad NG and *then* where would we be? No, if you read what Noal wrote again, it has nothing to do with amount of posts made, or length of posting. His point is somewhat more subtle than merely "I've been here longer". I suggest reading it again, as nothing in the section you cite requires time spent or amount of posts to be a requirement. And as it also says, without a logical argument, it's not going to get taken seriously - and even those who do meet Noal's other criteria will struggle without some form of logical argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

(Noal McDonald) wrote: > V:TES is a game. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is on crack. If you > don't like the new edtion, fine. Don't buy it. Just don't be surprised if > your prostelyzing on a nesgroup for the fans of the game falls on deaf > ears. I really think I need to clairfy this statement a little. I've read a few posts that think I want people who don't like what they're seeing in the new Cam set to not voice their opinion. After going through the "tow the party line or else" bullshit that prompted the formation of the NJL, I would never advocate anything of the kind. I do think that those who state they are quitting and then go on to rail against the set are putting the cart before the horse. They've made up their mind before having a rational discussion regarding their concerns. It also appears to me that they spend all their time defending their right to quit and right to voice their opinions that they don't actually have time to discuss them in a manner that is especially convincing for either side. Which is fine if you're not expecting others to follow in your steps. OTOH, those still trying to convince others not to purchase the set (i.e., awazzzzzzzzzzzz) are too busy bashing people over the head with their agenda to be effective at their intended goals. As most people can attest, when someone is attempting to push their ideas on others, they aren't as convincing as someone that attempts to convince with reasoned debate. So, please feel free to have a discussion on the merits and flaws of the upcoming set. Just don't proselytize. It only annoys us and prevents you from reaching your goals. Regards, Noal

Noal Mc Donald after drinking more coffee wrote in message <bb705c59.02080...@posting.google.com> >, I'd >like you to provide honest answers to a few questions so that we can >determine how potent your use of said tools are. > >1) How many boxes (or boosters) have you purchased of each expansion >(please list them individually, not as a collective whole) since V:TES was >released? If you don't know exact numbers, give a reasonable estimation. Jyhad - at least 10 booster boxes and 3 Starter boxes (I bought them upon release, I bought them when they dropped to $10, I bought some for sealed deck tourneys, and I won some at other local tourneys.) VTES - only 1 booster box DS - only about 2 booster boxes AH - about 4 booster boxes Sabbat - about 6 booster boxes (for a long time this was the only set I could find) SW - 1.5-2 Booster boxes - 1 box precons FN - 3 Booster boxes - .5 box precons BL - 2 Booster boxes (I would still be buying this, but I've quit VTES) What does this have to do with anything anyway? >2) What are your concerns with the Camarilla Edition? Please provide solid >reasoning to back them up, such as explaining a negative effect on game >balance. Please refrain from wild conjecture. Also, note that vampires >from older sets will be just as playable after the Camarilla Edition release >as they are today and White Wolf isn't responsible for the value of cards >in the secondary market and V:TES was never a money game anyway. I am not in this for the money. Previously I would have shunned the idea of selling my VTES cards - now they are wallpaper. The vamps from older sets will not be as playable - please see my first post in this thread. I go on for page and page about why I don't like CE and you are accusing me of not stating any reasons why I don't like it? No one has given me any reasons to like a set that wallpapers my collection. Please do not accuse me of not using examples - it will not make them go away. Instead read the posts, and refute the reasons I have given. >3) Who in the blue hell are you? Why should anyone listen to the words >that are coming out of your mouth, or more accurately, your keyboard? >You have done nothing to contribute to the community that would cause >us to take you seriously without a logical argument. I am a VTES player and collector. >The "staple" cards that you allude to have been proven, over time, to be >game winners. People have stated on many occasions that if a significant >portion of your crypt is made up of Princes and/or Justicars, than you are >foolish if you don't play with 2nd Tradition. Similarly, show me a single >competitive deck that primarily uses Presence and does not have combat >or intercept as an important element that doesn't use Majesty or Catatonic >Fear. > >The problem is that those "staple" cards have become "no brainer" cards >that people add into decks, knowing that they will help them win games >with minimal cost. By making those cards less of a "no brainer," people >will be forced to explore other aspects of the game, thus preventing >stagnation. I don't think of any card as a "no brainer card. For instance, no one strategy (bleed, vote, combat, etc.) outweighs the others. No one deck will win every time. If I am playing Bruja, I might want to play majesty, or I might want to concentrate more on the cel/pot buttwhip. Another example of a non-S:CE presence deck would be the Settite sneak bleed - where you avoid combat with stealth. Of course a prince deck would most likely use 2nd Trad (unless they wanted to avoid combat), I don't really see what's wrong with a prince performing a tradition! >If you don't adress some of the older "staple" cards, new cards will have >to increase the balance curve or the game will stagnate. By bringing the >power of those cards in line with most of the rest of the game, you will >avoid having to do that. I don't think Majesty has ever been a broken card. It is a staple card. Without staple cards there is no balance curve. >>> In fact, I'll bet money that WW will sell out their first printing in less >>> than a month after the release date. > >I'll happily >take your money so that it does get spent on the CE set. Does that mean that we're on? >> Quitting the game and quitting yammering are two different thing entirely. >I <snip> >I still don't understand what the fuck has happened to kids today. Getting >emotionally attached to a game is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever >heard. I enjoy playing V:TES with my friends and in tournaments against >good competition. I also enjoy playing Settlers of Catan with them and I'm >sure I'd enjoy tiddlywinks, too. But I don't get wound up because a new >expansion or edition has come out that I don't care for.Rather than >getting wound up, I just don't buy it. Do you post on the tiddlywinks newsgroup - defending it from trolls? No, I didn't think so. VTES is very different from the above games because it is a COLLECTIBLE game. The components are randomly distributed with rarities. It does not comes as a set - the idea is to mix crads from different booster packs together to make unique strategies. Now a set comes out that hinders/prevents the mixing of my current cards with the new ones. This really isn't brain surgery. As a consumer I have the right to demand products to fit my needs. I do not need to build a new VTES collection - I already have one. I need to add to my collection with cards that work with it. >V:TES is a game. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is on crack. If you >don't like the new edtion, fine. Don't buy it. Just don't be surprised if >your >prostelyzing on a nesgroup for the fans of the game falls on deaf ears. I'm sorry that your ears are deaf.

Derek Ray wrote in a rather disturbing message Message-id: <icsfkuobmou2vg2as...@4ax.com> > >FURTHER despite the fact that all of us have been discussing many such >changes for several years (you haven't), been playing consistently (you >haven't), been at ground zero for each of the new sets (you haven't), >been at ground zero for the major tournaments (you haven't)... Sorry, Derek, but here you are just plain wrong. I warned LSJ how detrimental negative changes can be on a game during 7/7 and have made other posts (only a few inconsequential ones) since then. I played (until now) VTES on a weekly basis at Draginfire and Valhalla's in Colorado. I have played in and won tournaments at game conventions (Tacticon and Genghis Con) I have participated in paraxis seizures and crusades - pretending that I do not know the game will not make it so. Sorry. >The only thing that could possibly make you believe that you even have a >REMOTE handle on what's happening here is an incredible case of >megalomania, or just plain old butt-fucking stupidity. So which is it? Again, Derek, the insults are just not making any relevant points. >"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P. Yes, derek, and it's still very grubby

>Subject: Re: Awazzzz and the new set >From: James Coupe ja...@zephyr.org.uk >Date: 7/31/02 3:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <QR3gdPNt...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk> > >In message <20020730164520...@mb-fg.aol.com>, Awazzzz ><awa...@aol.com> writes: >>But I am a troll. > >Well, there we go then. > >You're a troll. > >Bye now. > James, please do not defame my posts.

capta...@yahoo.com (Snapcase) wrote in message>Message-id: <15337c97.02073...@posting.google.com> > >awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message >news:<20020731023516...@mb-mf.aol.com>... >I >> don't see the point of collecting group 3 vamps. I can't use the new vamps >> with my current vamps - So why buy them? I can't compete with the new >vamps >> with my vamps - So why play? > >Your concern may or may not be founded. You don't know that the group >3 vamps will all be so powerful that your group 1 vampires will all be >obsolete/underpowered by comparison. I have heard that the point structure for them is different. I have also heard that the new vamps will have a 4th discipline. >> 3 pool for SUP is pretty cool. However, I do not fear these vamps, nor do >I >> fear multiple copies of these vamps. Has anyone playtested various >ubercrypts >> using paroxys? I think that I could beat any of them just fine using only >> group 1-2 vamps. I would probably use my "Fortitude Weenies" crypt to do >this >I'm curious as to why you think CE will "outdate" your current >collection? Everything that you seem to be annoyed with about CE has >already happened before: > >-More powerful vampires? Sabbat and Sabbat War vamps beat the piss >out of Jyhad/Vtes if you use the "point system". I can use the Sabbat vamps WITH the VTES vamps. If the choise is either/or then the superior group is the only choice. >-Reprints changing the way your cards work? Heidelburg Castle? Ruins >of Villar's Abbey? Aquired Ventrue Assets? Zip Gun? Fame? >Banishment? Blood Tears? Taste of Vitae? Immortal Grapple? Sure >the old worded cards became less desireable to have when teaching new >players, but they certainly were still playable. Personally, I bitched about the changes when they first started occuring during 7/7 (and a little before). I warned that it would set a nasty precedent for rewriting cards. With 112 rewrites in the game - targeting cards that are balanced, but at the top of the curve - I think it is a little "trigger happy." It is a marketing ploy to outdate the old cards. - The old cards no longer do what they say they do - and must be replaced for easy play. >-New layout? This is completely subjective whether you like it or not, >so any dislike you have of it is valid. But it certainly doesn't >"outdate" your current collection. Sure it does. The movement of the symbols makes it hard to combine my current cards with the new ones. >Nobody's taking away your cards. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything >new. Nobody's saying you can't play with the old cards. You stated >above that you're confident that you can beat "ubercrypts" with your >group 1-2 decks. I am equally certain that if you can back up that >claim that you will have no problem smashing all of the fools who buy >CE to play with the new vampires. I can still beat them, but it will be a problem to do so. I cannot back this up - because no games have been played with the groupings yet, but after it's done - remember Awazzzz - then you will have your proof. All I can say is that I have made claims before that have had no proof that later came to be true.(see above)

In message <20020804033439...@mb-bg.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote in a rather disturbing message Message-id: ><icsfkuobmou2vg2as...@4ax.com> >> >>FURTHER despite the fact that all of us have been discussing many such >>changes for several years (you haven't), been playing consistently (you >>haven't), been at ground zero for each of the new sets (you haven't), >>been at ground zero for the major tournaments (you haven't)... > >Sorry, Derek, but here you are just plain wrong. I warned LSJ how detrimental >negative changes can be on a game during 7/7 and have made other posts (only a Yes, and since 7/7 the game has been resurrected and has published four new expansions. Tournaments since then have seen a significantly expanded variety in the type of winning decks, as opposed to the RtI era, or the weenie vote push/Malk S&B era. Casual play has seen even more craziness, evinced by the winning decks we see posted here. It seems your warning was inaccurate in all senses. Your track record at predicting the future is pretty dismal. This would indicate that we SHOULDN'T bother listening to you now, as you are obviously just running around shouting that the sky is falling. Actually, it would almost indicate that the CE is going to be a great thing for the game... judging by how WAY OFF TRACK you were back then. >few inconsequential ones) since then. I played (until now) VTES on a weekly I object to the categorization 'a few'. However, this still supports my contention that you haven't been involved in the discussions of potential changes to these cards, and whether or not these cards need changed even though they aren't broken. >basis at Draginfire and Valhalla's in Colorado. I have played in and won >tournaments at game conventions (Tacticon and Genghis Con) I have participated None of these are what I refer to as "major tournaments" -- GenCon, Origins, or Dragon*Con. Also GenCon UK, and I have no idea what the Euros have going this week. >in paraxis seizures and crusades - pretending that I do not know the game will >not make it so. Sorry. Unfortunately, Bosco, your statements regarding the game and your perception thereof still, in fact, make it so. I don't care if you've beaten the Pope and his cardinals with a Ventrue combat deck; you obviously don't know a goddamn thing about what's been happening. Tell me again about how much you've done with the new sets? How many boxes have you purchased? How many decks have you made? How much time have you spent experimenting with the game, and then testing those experiments against skilled players? How much time have you spent THINKING about the game from the ground up -- assessing what the REAL current state of it is, instead of just what munchkin-you likes? >>The only thing that could possibly make you believe that you even have a >>REMOTE handle on what's happening here is an incredible case of >>megalomania, or just plain old butt-fucking stupidity. So which is it? > >Again, Derek, the insults are just not making any relevant points. You didn't answer my question. Others have made the relevant points already, and you've totally ignored them; I see no reason to waste my time trying to debate with you, because you obviously are incapable of listening to reason or logic. Instead, I prefer to waste five minutes pointing out that you're being a fucking moron, in hopes that lightning may strike you at the exact time you read this message and your brain will come to life. (I've wasted five minutes in more futile ways in the past.) -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020804035731...@mb-bg.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >capta...@yahoo.com (Snapcase) wrote in message>Message-id: ><15337c97.02073...@posting.google.com> >> >>Your concern may or may not be founded. You don't know that the group >>3 vamps will all be so powerful that your group 1 vampires will all be >>obsolete/underpowered by comparison. > >I have heard that the point structure for them is different. I have also heard >that the new vamps will have a 4th discipline. Both wrong. >>> 3 pool for SUP is pretty cool. However, I do not fear these vamps, nor do >>I >>> fear multiple copies of these vamps. Has anyone playtested various >>ubercrypts >>> using paroxys? I think that I could beat any of them just fine using only >>> group 1-2 vamps. I would probably use my "Fortitude Weenies" crypt to do >>this OK, I have to wedge in here and say this -- If you think a weenie Fortitude deck has a prayer of winning on the current tournament scene, then you really are more out of touch than I had believed. >>-Reprints changing the way your cards work? Heidelburg Castle? Ruins >>of Villar's Abbey? Aquired Ventrue Assets? Zip Gun? Fame? >>Banishment? Blood Tears? Taste of Vitae? Immortal Grapple? Sure >>the old worded cards became less desireable to have when teaching new >>players, but they certainly were still playable. > >Personally, I bitched about the changes when they first started occuring during >7/7 (and a little before). I warned that it would set a nasty precedent for And as I've proven in my other message, you were completely, 100% wrong about the effect the card rewrites had on the game. >rewriting cards. With 112 rewrites in the game - targeting cards that are >balanced, but at the top of the curve - I think it is a little "trigger happy." > It is a marketing ploy to outdate the old cards. - The old cards no longer do >what they say they do - and must be replaced for easy play. Who are you kidding? It isn't going to be hard for me to remember that Majesty now costs a blood, since I rarely use it at inferior anyway. Nor that 2nd Tradition now costs a blood if tapped. Those of us who have ACTUALLY BEEN PLAYING the game during the "years of no expansions but much errata" do not have any difficulty remembering this sort of thing; we're used to it. New players will only have cards from the CE, and possibly some from Sabbat War/Final Nights... all of which STILL have current text, and so they won't have the problem at all. Jyhad boxes simply aren't as easy to find as they once were. That era is long gone. New players will go for the CE first, as they should. >>-New layout? This is completely subjective whether you like it or not, >>so any dislike you have of it is valid. But it certainly doesn't >>"outdate" your current collection. > >Sure it does. The movement of the symbols makes it hard to combine my current >cards with the new ones. Only if you're a complete idiot. The cards are the same size and have the same back. They shuffle the same way, and they have the same information on them. No, I'm sorry, your argument holds absolutely no water here; just because you can't fan your cards out in your hand the way you're used to is NOT "hard to combine". >>Nobody's taking away your cards. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything >>new. Nobody's saying you can't play with the old cards. You stated >>above that you're confident that you can beat "ubercrypts" with your >>group 1-2 decks. I am equally certain that if you can back up that >>claim that you will have no problem smashing all of the fools who buy >>CE to play with the new vampires. > >I can still beat them, but it will be a problem to do so. I cannot back this Wait a minute. Either you can, or you can't. Which is it? Seems to me you're trying to hedge your bets here, buddy boy! If you CAN still beat them, then all of your claims regarding the CE being "overpowered to force people to buy new sets" are totally invalid, because there are many many better players than you, and if YOU can win, then surely they can win. >done - remember Awazzzz - then you will have your proof. All I can say is that Yeah, we'll remember Awazzzzzzzzzz, all right, but not the way you'd like us to. "Oh, that Sam guy -- wrong again." >I have made claims before that have had no proof that later came to be >true.(see above) This is a false statement. Your predictions for 7/7 were absolutely incorrect, as the game in fact took a huge upsurge not long afterwards. [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@yahoo.com writes: >OK, I have to wedge in here and say this -- If you think a weenie >Fortitude deck has a prayer of winning on the current tournament scene, >then you really are more out of touch than I had believed. I came pretty close to winning with a weenie fortitude deck recently. It plays very nicely in the current IG-driven LA scene. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

In message <20020804153955...@mb-mp.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) mumbled something about: >lor...@yahoo.com writes: > >>OK, I have to wedge in here and say this -- If you think a weenie >>Fortitude deck has a prayer of winning on the current tournament scene, >>then you really are more out of touch than I had believed. > >I came pretty close to winning with a weenie fortitude deck recently. >It plays very nicely in the current IG-driven LA scene. Yeah, but that's local to them (and surprising, in a way) -- I don't know any other regional metagame that a weenie fortitude deck would be any more than an annoyance in. It's a solid concept, but suffers from a few major flaws; intercept and stealth. It's not tough for people to wait around and see what it does, and then just refuse to punch the thing so that it jams up on fortitude cards. (Or hit it REALLY HARD, so that it runs out instantly.) [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020804035731...@mb-bg.aol.com>... >>Your concern may or may not be founded. You don't know that the >>group 3 vamps will all be so powerful that your group 1 vampires >>will all be obsolete/underpowered by comparison. > >I have heard that the point structure for them is different. >I have also heardthat the new vamps will have a 4th discipline. Strange that nobody has mentioned tihs before. Where did you hear this? Do you have any examples? So far we've seen a Brujah with Serpentis (if this is the "4th discipline I'll be much surprised), a Tremere with exactly the disciplines you'd expect, and a batch of rather large vampires with several (i.e. more than just a "4th") out of clan disciplines. Last I checked there were several vampires in Jyhad/VTES that had out of clan disciplines. Indeed, many Ventrue had the "4th discipline" of potence, no? >I can use the Sabbat vamps WITH the VTES vamps. >If the choise is either/or then the superior group is the only choice. I point back to the fact that you have absolutely no official knowledge of the relative power level of the new set compared to Jyhad/VTES. Many vampires in Jyhad/VTES suck. Many are very very good. You have no idea if the ones that are very very good are going to be weak in comparison to the new vampires. From what we've seen so far, many of the Jyhad/VTES vampires are still going to be very competitive. On the other hand I'm looking forward to not having to flip past Lydia Van Cullen, Elisabetta Romano and Thomas Thorne in my box and sighing because all of the 6-cap Tremere blow. I certainly HOPE that the Camarilla Edition is more powerful overall. A good healthy chunk of the VTES vamps are unplayable. This, however, does not OUTDATE the VTES vampires that people still use. I have severe doubts about the idea that Anneke or Anvil will never show up in decks again. >It is a marketing ploy to outdate the old cards. - The old cards no >longer do what they say they do - and must be replaced for easy play. If you do a search on this newsgroup you'll come across a nice canadian fellow named Errol. He sells VTES singles (quite a lot of them). If you're polite enough and pay for shipping I bet that he'll give you a good deal on a pile of new Majesties. That should appease your unfathomable inability to play with "outdated" printings of cards. Hell you won't even be paying White Wolf for these cards if that makes you feel better. Does it bother you that all of the 2nd traditions you currrently own are already outdated, even BEFORE Camarilla Edition comes out? How do you remember that you can play the card even if you don't need the intercept? How about Golcanda? Archon? Smiling Jack? Elysium? Do you use ONLY Sabbat War Obediences? How about Deflections? I don't know about you, but I have a real tough time remembering that I can't deflect to myself because it's not printed on the card... >Sure it does. The movement of the symbols makes it hard >to combine my current cards with the new ones. Why? Specifically, what about the symbol movement makes it hard to combine your current cards with the new ones? >I can still beat them, but it will be a problem to do so. >I cannot back this up - because no games have been played >with the groupings yet, but after it's >done - remember Awazzzz - then you will have your proof. If you can still beat them, then why the hell would you care what other people do? You'll be at the top of the tournament scene, with all of us lowly fools who bought CE remembering Awazzzz... >Personally, I bitched about the changes when they first started >occuring during 7/7 (and a little before). I warned that it >would set a nasty precedent for rewriting cards. With 112 >rewrites in the game - targeting cards that are balanced, >but at the top of the curve - I think it is a little "trigger happy." >All I can say is that I have made claims before that have had >no proof that later came to be true.(see above) What exactly came true? That a precedent was set for rewriting cards and they rewrote some more cards later? So what? Has this made the game unbalanced/unplayable/worse? Or are people playing and loving the game with a whole variety of deck archetypes made possible by many of these rewrites?

In message <20020804033439...@mb-bg.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Sorry, Derek, but here you are just plain wrong. I warned LSJ how detrimental >negative changes can be on a game during 7/7 and have made other posts (only a >few inconsequential ones) since then. 7/7 is, bye and large, still in force. Looks like you were wrong. You didn't provide reasoning then, you're not providing reasoning now. Your rants were wrong then, your rants are wrong now. 10/10 for consistency, at least. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020804034142...@mb-bg.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >James, please do not defame my posts. People are defamed, not posts - do a little research before defecating your nonsense, please. You said you were a troll. That's all there is to it. Bye now, troll boy. [ quoted text not captured ]